require very cogent argument to convince him of his error in this particular; he felt convinced, notwithstanding the majority given in Lancaster county against the call for a Convention, that his constituents would sustain him in this vote; his constituents, he said, feared evil amendments, but were prepared to go for good ones, and he hoped they would be agreeably disappointed. On the subject of the judiciary, however, he said his constituents were quite conservative, and he felt so himself; he was willing to sustain the judiciary as at present organised, and would go that way; but as to Executive patronage, he thought he had made up his mind, and he did not agree with his colleague, (Mr. BARNITZ) when he said that he thought that his constituents required no amendment. He (Mr. R.) thought that the people expected some alteration, and if his colleague restricted to York, his own immediate district, he might be correct, but he thought the people of Lancaster, part of the Senatorial district, did expect some amendment; but he cautioned delegates against submitting too many amendments to the people, as such a course might result in the rejection of all.

Mr. HOPKINSON said it had not been his intention to ask any of the time of the committee in discussing the subject now before it, had not the respectable gentleman from Luzerne (Mr. WooDWARD) done him the honor to have remarked on some of the observations and arguments he had made, offered a few days ago. He would have waited patiently to have given his vote, had not the gentleman seemed to misapprehend what had fallen from him on that occasion. He had assumed that he (Mr. H.) had advanced the argument that the 40,000 votes that were given for the different candidates for the office of Governor, and not given on the question of calling a Convention, ought to be claimed as votes against the Convention. The gentleman had misapprehended him. Such was not the fact. He (Mr. HOPKINSON) did say, and he understood the President of the Convention to say, that the 40,000 votes not given on the question of a Convention, might fairly be presumed to have been indifferent on the subject. Now, was that not a fair inference? If an important matter is in agitation, (continued Mr. H.) and I stand perfectly aloof, and take no part in the decision of it, is not that an inference to be drawn from the circumstance that I am entirely indifferent as to the result? If not, my understanding cannot comprehend what is a legitimate inference. If the man who takes no part in an important controversy, neither on the one side nor on the other, but exhibits an utter indifference as to the manner in which it may terminate, must not be presumed to be careless of the result, then am I utterly ignorant of all the rules of fair inference. Mr. H. said that the gentleman from Luzerne had gone into an ingenious argument, for the purpose of showing that these votes ought to be counted in favor of a Convention. That argument had not convinced him, for no argument could convince him in the face of the ballot box. And, gentlemen must excuse him, if he refused to take their arguments on this floor, against the acts of their constituents.

Mr. H. agreed that the various calculations made by gentlemen, as to the majorities, were founded on mere assumptions, and could be considered of no weight when opposed to the decision of the ballot box. The opinions of individuals were nothing to him; he looked to the opinion of the people as expressed through the ballot boxes. They spoke for them

selves, and so are we authorized to speak for them. He held, then, that as regarded the 40,000 votes withheld (and this also was the opinion of the President, and others who followed him), that he was perfectly justified in asserting that while there were but 13,000 majority in favor of a Convention, there were 40,000 who stood with their arms folded; and the argument was good that if these 40,000 votes had been polled, the majority would have been as great against the Convention as it now stood in favor of it.

It was a little extraordinary that in a body like this, where there were so many gentlemen experienced in legislation, that they should find themselves placed in the situation in which they now stood. The question about which this discussion began was simply the report of the committee on the fourth article, and the amendment proposed to it was so unconnected with any thing in the Constitution, that it seemed almost impossible to touch it without entirely forsaking the path through which the debate ought to travel. Now, gentlemen rise and say to the Chair-I do not rise to speak to the question-I do not rise to say whether the amendment should be adopted, or not. I rise to speak as to the source from whence this Convention has derived its powers, and the extent of those powers. Now, as this had been the course of the arguments of gentlemen, he might be permitted to say a few words on the subject of this power. We know that in our Government, and in all Governments, the people are the original source of all power, and from their decision there can be no appeal. But he did not believe that the will of the people was so easily ascertained. Every body thinks his own will to be that of the people. It is like the echo among the rocks—it is here, there, and every where, and no one can find it, and each man makes it the response of his own voice. But when the people speak-where the majesty of the people arise, where was the man, or body of men, who could oppose himself to it? We derive our power from the people of the Commonwealth. That power had been refered to by the gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. CLARKE) and what is it? He would read it from the Bill of Rights:

"All power is inherent in the people, and all free Governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and hap. piness for the advancement of those ends, they have, at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper".

Now, we had not the question before us, whether the people had, in their primitive assemblies, called this Convention. That question had been determined, and the people had left it to their ordinary representatives in the Legislature to carry their views into effect, as to the manner in which the Convention should be called. Now, we had been told, and this was the part of the argument which most startled him, that the Convention had no power to return the Constitution to the people unamended. Had the people, he asked, ever expressed their will on that point, in any manner, or in any way-directly or indirectly, by inference, or otherwise? He would ask, what was the only question ever submitted to them? Was it amendment or no amendment? Never. It was "For a Convention, to submit its proceedings to a vote of the people"; or "Against a Convention "-and not "Amendment", or "No Amendment", or whether the Constitution should be changed, or altered, or not.

What, then, was the object of calling the Convention? It was to examine the Constitution, and to deliberate and determine whether any changes were required, or whether any could be made which would be beneficial to the people. The people of Pennsylvania had never declared it to be their will that the Constitution should be changed. That would have placed many gentlemen in an awkward situation. He would take the case of a member, of a gentleman being selected by the people for his knowledge and patriotism, to examine the Constitution for the purpose of ascertaining whether any amendments were necessary to be made to it, and he should come to the conclusion, after such examination, that no amendment could be made without doing wrong to the people—was it possible that he could feel himself bound to do that wrong? Would he be called upon to do it in pretended obedience to the people? He thought that a man would hardly sit here under that impression. He thought that no man would consent thus to violate his conscience, or his duty to his country. The gentleman had asserted that there was no limitation on the power of the Convention, except that all the amendments proposed to be made in the Constitution, must be submitted to the people for their ratification; yet, the next moment he imposed a restriction, strict, rigid, and uncompromising, by saying-we had no power to send the Constitution back to the people unaltered. Suppose that every thing had been amply discussed-after every man had compared his sentiments with those of his neighbour, and we should come at last to the conclusion, that the Constitution is "matchless", or at least that it is not in our power to amend it, but still considered ourselves bound to make a change-what course would be left for us to pursue? Here are nine articles-all good, but one must be sacrificed. Would you adopt the practice in the Roman army, when it was necessary to sacrifice any portion of it, to expediency, or public policy, and cast lots for the victim? If it was made imperative upon us to sacrifice one of the articles, it would be a task of great perplexity for us to select that one. But, it was asked, are we to do nothing? To this he would reply-better to do nothing than to do mischief. Much better would it be that we should spend our time and the public money in doing nothing, than in doing mischief. He did not know what might be done here. He had come here unfettered and unpledged by promises, to any human being. And, he would here say, that when gentlemen come here and say where reforms can be advantageously made, and he could be satisfied that they were good and beneficial, he would vote for them. But, he would ask, when gentlemen talk about the great anxiety on the part of the people to have certain changes introduced into the Constitution, for the evidence of that anxiety. He had heard of no complaints, and if the people were so anxious, as had been represented, if there existed such oppression under the present system, and such suffering every where, he could not account for it that the tone of public grievance had never reached his ear.

[This is merely an outline of the argument of Mr. HOPKINSON, his observations being delivered in a tone which was sometimes inaudible, and in general, indistinctly conveyed to the ear.]

Mr. INGERSOLL then commenced a series of remarks on the powers of the Convention, but before he had made much progress,

S*

At the suggestion of Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, he yielded to a motion that the committee rise.

On motion of Mr. BANKS, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

Mr. EARLE asked leave to withdraw the resolution he had offered in the early part of the morning, but before any question was taken, The Convention adjourned.

TUESDAY, May 23, 1837.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, moved to correct the journal, stating that the resolution which stood recorded, as offered by him yesterday, he had withdrawn.

Mr. Cox, of Somerset, stated that there was merely a motion for leave to withdraw, pending, when the Convention adjourned.

Mr. EARLE said he had withdrawn, and that it was in his power, as no motion had been made on it, to withdraw the resolution.

The PRESIDENT: The gentleman from Philadelphia desires that the journal should be corrected. The error attributed is, that a certain resolution offered yesterday by the gentleman is placed on the journal, which resolution was withdrawn by him, and therefore should not be on the journal. The facts, as well as the Chair can recollect, are these: The resolution was offered and read, and no motion for its second reading was made by the gentleman. The gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. DENNY) moved the Convention to proceed to the second reading, but the Chair considered that motion to be out of order. No other motion was made on the subject. A motion was made in Convention to adjourn. The gentleman from Philadelphia asked leave to withdraw his resolution. The motion to adjourn was then withdrawn, but was immediately renewed, and before there was any decision on the question of granting leave, the Convention adjourned. The Chair is of opinion, that the motion for leave to withdraw was not in order at the time when it was made, without a vote of two-thirds, as the subject was not then before the Convention. It would have been necessary first to proceed to the consideration of the resolution; and then the motion for leave to withdraw would have been in order. The motion, therefore, was not in order, and, if it was, it was superseded by the motion to adjourn. These are the facts, and the Chair is of opinion that the journal is right.

Mr. EARLE withdrew his motion. If the resolution should give offence to any gentleman's feelings, he should be sorry that it was on the journal. Mr. PORTER arose and said, Mr. President, I beg leave to present to you, and through you, to the Convention, the memorial of the yearly meeting of the Society of Friends, in the Commonwealth, praying for relief from the burthens imposed upon them under the existing Constitution, by reason of their conscientious opinions.

The Society of Friends embraces a large number of the most useful, moral, intelligent, and industrious inhabitants of this Commonwealth. Men proverbial for their integrity, public spirit, charity, aud hospitality; whose pure and disinterested benevolence and philanthropy have filled the

commercial capital of this State with institutions which adorn humanity, encourage learning and useful knowledge-foster and improve science provide for want and distress-afford comfort, medicine, and attendance to the sick, the afflicted, and the destitute-teach the dumb and the blind, as it were, to speak and to see- -afford the opportunity for reformation and restoration to virtue and respectability to the fallen-and who, in fact, have either founded, or greatly aided in sustaining all the noble charities which have placed Philadelphia so pre-eminently above all the cities of the world, and reflected on our Commonwealth no small portion of the character which she bears.

The illustrious and almost prophetical founder of Pennsylvania, himself a Friend, who had suffered persecution and imprisonment for conscience sake, laid the basis of all those liberal principles, which have stamped greatness upon almost every thing pertaining to this Commonwealth, and have made her second to none in the American Union. The effect of the principles, character, conduct and example of these people, has not been alone confined to your cities: they are felt throughout the State; and it may truly be said of them, that none are more enterprising merchants, more industrious and prosperous farmers or mechanics, or better or more peaceful citizens and neighbors than they.

The claims of such a body of citizens are entitled to be received with respect, and treated with due consideration. There are members of the society, holding seats in this body, to whom I had supposed the presentation of the memorial would have more appropriately belonged, but with a delicacy which I perfectly appreciate, and which is characteristic of them, they have declined doing so, as it is their own cause, their own petition, and I have been asked to perform the duty, which I do with great cheerfulness. Without committing myself as to the course which I may ultimately pursue, I may be permitted to say, that, not belonging to the society myself, nor holding their peculiar doctrines on the subject of bearing arms, I respect the conscientious feelings by which I know they are influenced, and it is a duty, as well as a privilege, thus, in some measure, to acknowledge, if not to repay the many acts of kindness confered upon my parents and myself, by our nearest neighbors and most respected friends, who were of that society, and the individual obligations under which I personally labor, to more than one of that respectable society, when a youth, and away from home, labouring under sickness and afflictions, and when they extended to me all the care and kindness I could have asked, or expected under a parent's roof.

The memorial was then ordered to be refered to the committee on the ninth article of the Constitution, and printed.

Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia, submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to be laid on the table, and printed :

Resolved, That the committee upon the currency, corporations, &c., be instructed to report a new section to the Constitution, prohibiting the Legislature of this State from incorporating any banks, or other institutions, with authority to "emit bills of credit", or any thing for the payment of debts other than gold and silver. And that the said committee be further instructed to ascertain if it is in the power of this Convention to make such provision as shall forever annul and extinguish the charters of banks, heretofore granted by the Legislature of this state, that shall refuse gold and silver in payment of their debts.