(Mr. STEVENS) belonged. He believed, however, that when the question of reform was brought fairly before the Convention, that party considerations would be entirely left out of view, and that gentlemen would come forward without regard to party, and join in the work of reform as their constituents desired them to do, and adopt such measures as were right, and reject such as were wrong. If it was the object of this Convention to amend our Constitution, he would submit it to gentlemen whether the most appropriate mode of introducing those amendments would not be through standing committees raised upon the subjects embraced in the Constitution. Beside the standing committees proposed to be raised by this rule, had they not heard of other subjects of sufficient importance to justify the raising of separate committees? The subjects of the currency and corporations, of public highways and the eminent domain of the state were subjects of the very highest importance, and on all these subjects the people desired imformation, and were they not to give them this information? He hoped, therefore, that gentlemen would not refuse to grant these committees.

Mr. MERRILL Would not have said a word on the subject, had it not been for what had fallen from the gentleman on his right (Mr. WOODWARD). He could not approve of the course which that gentleman conceived to be preferable to the one proposed, for he did not believe that it would be either practicable or profitable. No advantage could be gained by it. He (Mr. M.) was of opinion that it was much better to refer the different subjects to the various committees, so that the principles pertaining to each subject should be kept separate and distinct. When each committee reported separately, the danger of reporting conflicting matter would be avoided. They would report about the same time, and then every member would be able to see the whole of the proposed amendments at once. Under every view of the matter, he felt disposed to vote for the motion of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

Mr. CURLL regarded the proposition of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia as one of great importance. The subjects which he wished to have referred to separate committees were of the greatest magnitude and most important character that could be brought under the consideration of this enlightened body. He (Mr. C.) was at a loss to perceive, as had been contended for, that the committees already raised had those subjects embraced in others that were before them which the gentleman proposed to send to additional committees, which he desired now to be formed. His (Mr. CURLL'S) opinion was that the subject matters contained in the seventh article of the Constitution of 1790 had no connexion with the corporations to which the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia referred in his resolution, but had reference only to the fortyfifth section of the Constitution of '76, which he begged leave to read.Mr. C. then read as follows:

"SECTION 45. Laws for the encouragement of virtue, and prevention of vice and immorality, shall be made and constantly kept in force, and provision shall be made for their due execution. And all religious societies or bodies of men, heretofore united or incorporated for the advancement of religion and learning, or for other pious and charitable purposes, shall be encouraged and protected in the enjoyment of the privileges, immunities and estates which they were accustomed to enjoy, or could of

right have enjoyed under the laws and former Constitution of this State". Now, the incorporations of the present day were as different and distinct as they could possibly be in their character, nature, and tendency, from those which were alluded to in the Constitution. He hoped that no effort would be made by any gentleman on this floor to stifle inquiry, and to defeat the bringing up of the momentous subjects in question for the action of this Convention-for, they were subjects in which the rights and interests of the community were deeply involved. And, after they should have been debated here, and gentlemen could effect nothing, they would at least have the satisfaction of recording their votes, and showing their constituents how they had voted. He would, with pleasure, vote for the motion of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

A division of the question was called for by Mr. RUSSELL, of Bedford, to end with "Corporations".

The question was then taken on the first division of the amendment, and it was determined in the affirmative.

The second division of the amendment was then agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERS moved further to amend the said rule by striking from the tenth printed line the words "each committee to consist of nine members", and adding the same after the word "state", in the twelfth committee; which was agreed to.

Mr. DORAN moved further to amend the said rule, by striking therefrom the word "nine", and inserting in lieu thereof, "eleven"; which was decided in the negative.

Mr. STEVENS moved further to amend the said rule, by inserting after the word "Constitution", in the ninth printed line, the following: "A committee on the subject of public loans and the State debt".

Mr. STEVENS said that he thought this was as important a subject as any that had been brought before the Convention. And as it was the determination of the body to introduce all important matters and refer them to the standing committee, he thought he might as well bring this one, and have it take the same course. He thought that it was high time that we should ask the people of the commonwealth, whether it was not proper to add some constitutional limits to the burdens, in the shape of a debt, which the Legislature had imposed upon the people and their posterity. He thought that it ought to go to a committee in order that the subject should be inquired into. He had no hesitation in expressing his opinion that a constitutional limit should be placed to the State debt, before the Legislature should increase it.

Mr. Cox, of Somerset, remarked that it seemed to him, that unless some good reason could be shown to the contrary, it was proper that some limitation should be introduced into the Constitution.

We came here as the representatives of the people, and therefore we ought to carry out their wishes and views. Now, he had no hesitation in declaring, as one of the representatives of the people that they do desire that there should be some constitutional limit to the State debt. He thought that the Convention, should they but reflect for a moment as to the amount of the debt which had been incurred within the last ten years, would at once see the propriety of some action in respect to it. And, more especially, if they reflected upon the course pursued by a recent Legislature of this State, he felt certain that they would be convinced of

pre

the necessity of adopting some course which would have the effect of venting an increase of the debt. What! were we to come here, as some gentlemen had told us, to represent the wishes and interests of the people, and neglect this matter, which was of the greatest importance, and concerning which so much had been said? If the representatives of the people went on for the next twenty years, as they had done for the last ten, appropriating enormous sums of money, the State debt would amount to seventy-five millions of dollars! And, should they go on for the next six years, as they had done at the last session, appropriating immense sums, the State would be in debt to the amount of fifty millions! Then, the question arose (and it was a matter deserving of serious reflection) whether that amount was not too much for the people to have hanging over their heads? He thought that it behoved every member of the Convention, before he voted down that proposition, to consider deliberately and carefully the effects of so doing. He hoped that the motion would prevail.

Mr. DORAN, of Philadelphia, said that he was glad that the gentleman from Adams had brought forward this subject. He would vote for this committee, and he trusted that the gentleman would bring forward a proposition concerning the rise and progress of Antimasonry.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, said he should vote against the proposition of the gentleman from Adams in order to save him from the effect of his own arguments. He thought it a pity to spoil his arguments against the proposition of his colleague. If the gentleman would bring forward a proposition for a committee on secret societies, he would vote for it.

Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman shall be gratified to his heart's content. The question being taken on the amendment, it was agreed to. Mr. STEVENS then moved an amendment by adding these words after the word "debt": "A committee on the subject of secret societies".

Mr. STEVENS believed it would be deemed on all hands that this was a subject worthy the consideration of the Convention. They all knew that it was a subject which had deeply agitated the people of this Commonwealth, with perhaps the exception of the city of Philadelphia, and was it not right that a question on which seventy or eighty thousand of our citizens had expressed an opinion, should be brought before this Convention and receive its due consideration. Gentlemen might depend upon it that this question would find its way in some shape or other into this Convention, and it seemed to him that the most appropriate mode of disposing of it, for the present, would be to send it to a committee, to be there put in a proper shape for the action of the Convention. This subject had engaged the attention of great and good men, not only in this country but in every country in Europe. It was considered of sufficient importance in England to be referred to a committee of parliament, and that committee had recently brought in a report on the subject; and DANIEL O'CONNELL, the great apostle of Irish liberty, had, as he perceived in the journals of the day, made a powerful speech to the people of England on the subject, within the last two months. The subject was beginning to agitate every country which laid the least claim to freedom of debate, and he hoped it might receive the favorable reception of this Convention; at least that gentlemen might allow a committee to be raised on the subject.

Mr. DORAN moved to strike out the words "of secret societies", and

insert in lieu thereof the words "on the rise and progress of Antimasonry".

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, thought the time had gone by when subjects of this kind would find their way into bodies like this. For the last few years no one could open an Antimasonic newspaper, or listen to an Antimasonic speech, but he would find the same statements, of what the EMPEROR of RUSSIA, DANIEL O'CONNELL, or the KING of SPAIN were doing against the poor Freemasons. It reminded him of the fiddler who, when asked to play any tune, no matter what, always ended with "Dick bang the weaver". It seemed they were going to have "Dick bang the weaver" again.

Mr. CHANDLER, of the city, said, I rise, Mr. President, to express a hope that the gentleman from the county, (Mr. DORAN) will withdraw his motion; and the gentleman from Adams (Mr. STEVENS) will also see the propriety of not pressing his upon the Convention. Whatever views of policy may be deemed expedient in the organization of a party, or in prosecution of a general canvass, it seems to me, sir, that here at least we should adopt the spirit of the wise man's recommendation, and answer not an improper proposition, according to its impropriety. The duties of the members of this Convention are solemn and of high import; and it would be offering violence to the views, if not an insult to the feelings of our constituents, to make this room the arena of party squabbles or of personal recriminations.

I should be unwilling to make any committee of this body, much less the Convention itself, the historians of such matters as the resolution of the gentleman from the county proposes for consideration. And as for the matter of secret societies, I appeal to my friend from Adams, whether we as co-partizans, were not sufficiently rebuked by last October elections, for a public interference in such concerns.

The gentleman from Adams talks of these societies having been driven from Europe. I can know, sir, of course, nothing of secret societies. I have, indeed, heard that one society was once broken up in Europe; but I have heard also, that it is revived there, and introduced here. As that, perhaps, may come under the distinction of secret society, it may be well to ask, from the other delegate from Adams, as well as my friend from the county, who moved the last resolution, whether they will not find what is dearest in their views of religious freedom, strangely violated, when the Constitution of Pennsylvania shall be made to deny existence to a society established to disseminate science, by peaceable means, and in connexion with that religion which they both profess.

I have no wish to limit the proper action of this body; but I solemnly protest against the introduction of matters totally irrelevant to its objects and derogatory to the dignity with which the people and the Legislature of the State have clothed it. And I ask, Sir, whether the course now pursued is such as will commend our deliberations to the approval of our constituents. If the solemn duties devolved upon us are not sufficient to confine our action to proper subjects, it would be better for us, and more edifying to the people, that we should adjourn at once, than to present the spectacle of passionate discussions of subjects, forced upon us by party discipline, or for the gratification of personal feeling. Let us rather adjourn immediately, and say to our constituents that being unable to per

form any good work for which we were elected, we had the honesty at least to abstain from the performance of positive evil and the exhibition of bad examples.

Mr. MANN moved to postpone the amendment and amendments, indefinitely. Pending this motion,

The Convention adjourned.

MONDAY, May 8, 1837.

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the orders of the day were postponed for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of the report of the committee on rules.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, moved to postpone the 29th rule, relative to the appointment of committees, for the present, in order that they might consider and adopt the remaining rules. Mr. CLARKE said, the more he reflected upon this matter the more he was convinced that the reference first of each article of the Constitution to a separate standing committee was not the best mode of proceeding. He apprehended there would be a great diversity of opinion in these committees. Some might be so radical that they would introduce a great deal of novelty into the Convention, while others might be so conservative as to think there were no alterations at all necessary in the Constitution. In consequence of this they might have, as, he doubted not, they would have, in many instances two reports, and perhaps in some three; and this he considered would rather tend to confuse than to enlighten the members of the Convention. He thought the best plan was to take up the Constitution in committee of the whole, and there consider it article by article, and section by section, and take the sense of the committee on each, and when the majority thought any amendment necessary in a particular section, they could adopt a resolution, that in the opinion of the committee the Constitution ought to be amended, as they might indicate. This was the course pursued in the Convention of 1789-90. The Convention met on the 24th November, 1789, and after consuming eight days in organising and preparing for business, they went into committee of the whole on the 1st of December, and on the 9th of December the committee of the whole reported a set of resolutions expressive of the sense of the committee of the whole as to the matters to be embraced in the new Constitution. That report was discussed two days, when a committee was appointed to put the Constitution in a proper form to be brought before the Convention. days afterwards this committee reported in part, and in two days made a further report. On the 23d of December the Convention went into committee of the whole on the Constitution as reported by the committee of nine. On the 5th of February, 1790, the committee of the whole made another report. On the 18th of February it was referred to a committee of three for the purpose of revision. On the 24th of February the committee of three made a partial report, and on the 26th of February, reported the remainder, when the Convention adjourned to meet again on the 9th of August. The Convention then met on the 9th of August and discussed the Constitution until the 2nd of September, when it was adopted

In ten