declaring our sentiments and convictions freely in this public body. For my own part, I had flattered myself that my course here had been such as not to render me liable to the observations or the animadversions of any member on this floor, be his principles or his party what they may. In this, also, I perceive that I am mistaken and disappointed-for I find such animadversions made upon myself, and that too, in a quarter from which I should not have expected to hear them. However, I have a plain and straight forward course to pursue. I shall pursue it without fear, favor, or affection, as I have endeavoured to do heretofore; and, so far as that course is concerned, I shall not hold myself responsible to any man in this convention :-but I shall hold myself responsible to my constituents alone. By them I am willing to be judged, and by their judg ment I am content to stand or f 11.

I advocated the amendment that was before us this morning-I allude to the amendment of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) because I entertained the belief that the call for any amendments to the constitation should first come from the people. A majority of the convention, however, decided that the call should first come from the legislature. Agreeably to the principles which I profess, I must submit to the will of the majority. And I am perfectly willing so to do. But in doing so, I hold it to be my privilege to retain my own conviction that the course I have pursued is just and propor. I award to no man the right to interfere with me in that respect. But, amongst other things, the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. Earle) has taken occasion to bear hard upon some of us for voting upon a particular motion in such a manner as we thought to be correct, and as our consciences pointed out to us to be so. Yesterday I was rated because I thought proper to vote in favor of postponing the further consideration of a part of the ninth article. And for what reason? Why, because it went to deprive a certain member of the convention of the opportunity of placing in the bill of rights a provision against increasing the debt of the state beyond a given amount. I am sure that, in voting as I did, I had no such design in view; for I believed then, as I believe now, that the article would still be left open to amendment. And I contend, moreover, that such a provision can as well be placed in the article on which we are now acting, as in any other part of the constitution. But I suppose that the gentleman had a number of amendments prepared, and that he feels himself aggrieved in not having been able to present them all. Well, Mr. President, it is an old adage, and not the less true because it is old, that those who live in glass houses should never throw stones. Now, let us see what the opinion of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia was, and the convention will then perceive whether, in the course which he has pursued, he has acted agreeably to his own doctrines. By turning to our printed files, gentlemen will find the following resolution which he offered so far back as the tenth of May last. It is numbered eight:

Resolved, That a committee of nine be appointed to consider and report, whether any, and if any, what provision ought to be inserted in the constitution, prescribing the manner and form in which future amendments to that instrument may be made at the desire and by the act of the people.

Now, continued Mr. S., the main object which I have had in view, has been that the first act towards future amendments should be on the part of the people; and because that was my object, I have been thus

severely animadverted upon by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, I think it might be well for him to look a little more closely to the "ways of his own household," and not to interfere with other gentlemen in what they believe to be a conscientious discharge of their duty.

I know, Mr. President, that it is not exactly in order to allude to these matters at the present time. I have been forced into it by the observations of the gentleman, in rating me for the vote which I gave yesterday. As to the amendment immediately before us, I suppose I had better say nothing about it, lest I should again incur the displeasure and subject myself to the animadversions of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia. I will, therefore, take my seat.

Mr. MILLER, of Fayette, said he had stated the other day that he wanted to go home to attend to harvest. But he feared he should never get there in time for any useful purpose, unless the convention get on a little faster with the business before it. He would, therefore, call 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 said amendment?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FRY and Mr. M'Cahen, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Chambers, Chandler. of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Deony, Dickey, Dickerson, Fry, Harris, Hays. Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Snively, Thomas, Todd-44.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger. Coates, Crain, Crawford, Cummin. Curll. Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, oran, Earle, Fou krod, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenel', Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Seilers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia. Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, White, Woodward, Young, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tempore-60.

So the amendment was rejected.

And the question then recurring on agreeing to the section as amended:

A motion was made by Mr. M'CAHEN,

To amend the said section by adding to the end thereof the words as follow, viz: "Provided, that if more than one amendment be submitted, it shall be in such manner and form that the people may vote for each amendment separately and distinctly."

Mr. M'CAHEN said, he should not occupy the time of the convention with any remarks on this amendment. Its object was plain, and such as, he should suppose, would receive the unanimous approbation of the

convention. It would prevent the legislature from connecting two dissimilar amendments, one of which might be good and the other evil, and in consequence of which connexion the good which was wanted, might be rejected by the people rather than be taken with the evil which accompanied it.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the said amendinent?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr M'CAHEN and Mr. SMITH, of Columbia, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Cleavnger, Cochran, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Denny, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Merrill, Miller, Myers, Nevin, Overfield. Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers. Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, Taggart, White, Woodward, Porter, of Northampton, Presi dent pro tempore-59.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Bonhara, Brown, of Lancaster, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cope, Cox, Crum, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Fry, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Hopkinson, Maclay, M'Sherry, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Russell, Baeger, Scott, Snively, Sterigere, Thomas, Todd, Young-43.

So the amendment was agreed to.

And the question then again recurring on agreeing to the section, as amended,

Mr. EARLE said, he hoped that the report of the committee would be agreed to. It provides, continued Mr. E., for a government of the people, in accordance with the principle laid down in the second section of the bill of rights, and which is in the following words :

"SECTION 2. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness: 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.'

Allusion has been made, continued Mr. E., to the constitution of the United States, and to the principle of two-thirds therein laid down as requisite to amendments to the constitution. That case is entirely dif ferent from that now under discussion. The two-thirds principle, while it did not apply to a consolidated sovereignty of a state like that of Pennsylvania, might apply to a confederated sovereignty like that of the United States; and in the latter case, probably, even a unanimous consent might be required before a change in the constitution could be effected. In the constitution, as originally made, there were doubtless some pro`visions crept in, contrary to the wi.l of the majority; yet the people were obliged to take them all together. Such may be the case with us. If we submit the amendments all together, some of them may become the law of the land under the vote of a minority.

Allusion has been made by the gentleman from Centre county (Mr. Symth) to a resolution presented be me, at an early stage of the proceedings of this body, providing for the appointment of a committee to

inquire whether any provision should be inserted in the constitution to enable the people to amend the constitution at their own desire, and by their own act. I hold that this is a proper amendment; and I ask the members of this convention, if the amendment, as it is now before us, will not enable the people to amend their constitution at their own desire and by their own act? It must necessarily be so, for it is the act of the people which makes the amendment valid as a part of the constitution, and if the amendment is not approved by the act of the people, it can not become valid as a part of the constitution.

In my opinion, however, the amendment does not go far enough, and if I could have hopes of being sustained by the convention, I would move to go a little further.

He

According to the principle of the bill of rights, the whole people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania have a right to alter their government whenever they think proper. He would move an amendment-though he entertained no hope of its being carried-so as to make it a majority of male citizens, or male inhabitants above the age of twenty-one. believed that principle was adopted in New York. He thought that the convention was elected by a vote of the whole people, and not the whole of the voters under the old constitution. Now, there was a correct principle adopted. He would move to amend so as to correct the phraseology.

Mr. EARLE then moved to amend the section by striking therefrom the words "at such time and inanner," where they occur at the twelfth line, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "in such manner and at such time."

Which was agreed to.

Mr. DICKEY moved to amend the section by striking therefrom all after the word "amendments," where it occurs in the fourth line, to the word "shall" in the eleventh line thereof.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the said amendment,

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DICKEY and Mr. KONIGMACHER, and are as follows, viz:

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Coates, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Earle, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Greneli, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoi!, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, M'Dowell. M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Riter, Ritter, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, White, Woodward, Young, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tem.-101.

So the question was determined in the negative.

A motion was made by Mr. HIESTER,

Further to amend the said section by striking therefrom the words "as soon as practicable," where they occur in the sixth line, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "three months before the next election."

Mr. HIESTER said, his reason for offering this amendment was to make the section more explicit. The words "so soon as practicable" were very indefinite, and it would be better that the time should be explicitly proscribed.

Mr BARCLAY, of Westmoreland, said that he saw no end to these amendments, and he hoped, therefore, that he would be sustained in the call for the previous question, which he now moved.

But the convention refused to second the demand.

And the question on the amendment of Mr. HIESTER was then taken, and decided in the affirmative without a division.

So the amendment was agreed to.

And the question again recurring on the adoption of the section as amended:

Mr. MILLER, of Fayette, rose and called for the immediate question.

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

And on the question,

Shall the question on the section as amended be now put?

It was determined in the affirmative.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the section as amended?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DARRAH and Mr. DICKEY, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Foulk rod, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Gren ell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen. M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Purviance, Riter, Ritter, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Shelito. Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, White, Woodward, Young, Por ter, of Northampton, President pro tem.-84.

NAYS-MSSSTS. Barnitz, Chambers, Coates, Crum, Denny, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Henderson, of Allegheny, Konigmacher, Long, Merrill, Merkel, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Scott, Snively-18.

So the section as amended was agreed to.

A motion was made by Mr. M'CAHEN,

To amend the said report by adding there to the following new sec tion, viz:

"SECTION 2. The legislature shall enact laws for the punishment of fraudulent debtors; but after the adoption of this amended constitution, imprisonment for debt in this commonwealth shall be forever abolished."

Mr. M'CAHEN said,

It had been his intention to have offered this amendment as section sixteenth of the bill of rights, but that he had been prevented from se