mon schools are established throughout the state, so far as relates to that part, leaving it discretionary with the districts to accept or reject the system. This was his idea in relation to this matter.

Sir, our situation is this: We have a system of common schools which have been built up in great wisdom, and by leaving it to the discretion of the people, it has attained a popularity that now insured its

continuance.

He thought we might safely conclude that this system would be carried out to the fullest extent, if we permit it to work its way with the people, and to gain on their affections by degrees. But, it must now be recollected, that we are not legislating to give the people a law or a system which is to gain on them by degrees, we are not making a law by which they are to be persuaded, but we are making an amendment which is to be submitted directly to the people, for their approval or rejection. Then he would ask gentlemen, if it was unsafe to leave it to the legislature, which had built up such a system, as we have the whole management of this matter. Do we, in a word, gain any thing by any provision before us, unless it is that of the gentleman from the county of Philadel phia, which runs considerably into details, even if the people should adopt them, other than an acknowledgment in the constitution, of the importance of popular education. Do you obtain any thing by it, but what you now have provided for by the laws of your legislature. Well, then, if our system be insured to us by public sentiment, and by the laws of our legislature, we gain nothing by a mere acknowledment of it in our constitution. One word with regard to that part of the eld canstitution which said that the legislature should provide for the educa tion of the poor gratis.

He had always thought himself, that it was by no means disreputable to Pennsylvania, that she regarded the great duties of government to those classes of the community to whom fortune had been unkind; and he confessed it was a perfectly new idea to him, that this broad recogni tion of the rights of the poor, and of our duties to them, was disrep utable.

There are poor children in this country. There are many families, and large families too, whose conditions are such that they are not able to educate their children; then, is there any thing disreputable in our performing our duty to that class of people. Whatever the rich may do, whatever the taxable inhabitants of the state may say, they are obliged, by our fundamental law, to attend to the interests of that class of our citizens, so far as their education is concerned. Then are these obliga tions which rest upon us disreputable to the state? He differed very much from those gentlemen, who looked upon this as a servile principle, or a principle calculated to produce servile feeling in a part of our community.

He was not aware that this feeling was entertained in relation to this mode of instruction, in any part of our state. It might be possible that it met with objection in the country, on this ground, but certainly not in cities and large towns. He knew in those towns and cities in which he was acquainted, they were glad to receive instruction in these schools, supported at the expense of the commonwealth-these poor schools.

He did not think it was any degradation to attend a school supported at the public expense. He did not think it any disgrace to acknowledge our poverty. But, even if it be so-and allowing this feeling to prevail, have we not got rid of it with our school system. Has the legislature not provided for it? Have we not the school system extending over a large portion of our commonwealth, and by the law which created that system, it is provided that those who reject it, cannot cast from them the poor and neglect their education.

Unless gentlemen were desirous that the poor of our state should be neglected, he did not think they ought to be so anxious to erase this provision from our constitution. He did not think it detracted any from the fame of Pennsylvania, that she has recognized in her constitution, the right of the poor to instruction at the public expense. If that be

a disgrace, he was perfectly willing to receive his share of it. Mr. BONHAM said his impression was, and had been, that the lighter we touch this subject the better. As there seemed to be considerable objection to the word, and it seemed to be obnoxious to many, he would consent that it should be erased; but he hoped that with, that exception, the present constitution would be allowed to remain as it was. The amendment suggested by the gentleman from Adams, seemed to obviate that difficulty, and he was willing to vote for it, if he ever got the opportu nity.

The more, however, that he listened to this discussion, the more he was convinced that we had better leave this subject where it was. He knew many townships, in the county, he in part represented, who, because they were under the impression that it was attempted to force the school system upon them, rejected it, and would have nothing to do with it, when first presented to them. Since, however, they have become satisfied with it, and have now accepted of it. Many counties yet educate their poor children on the old system, and prefer that to the school -system.

But he had no doubt if the present system was allowed to remain, as at present existing, that in the course of time, it would become general throughout the state. He should, therefore, be in favor of falling back upon the old constitution, and with that view should vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Bucks, and against the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia county; he believed the present constitution more satisfactory and liable to less objection, than it would be if it was amended by either of the propositions which had been submitted.

Mr. STEVENS regretted that the gentleman from Bucks had submitted the amendment now under consideration, because in truth, and in fact, it was only a reiteration of the report of the committee, and it seemed to him that it would be consuming much more time to submit it here, than by leaving the matter stand till we come to take the vote upon the report of the committee.

Again, it seemed to him to be scarcely fair, so far as the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia was concerned, to be proposing amendments to it, which went to strike it out, and not allow a direct vote of the committee to be taken upon it, and if that amendment

was rejected, then we would be brought directly to the report of the com mittee.

He desired then to have a direct vote upon Mr. Ingersoll's amend ment, and then upon the report of of the committee, as proposed to be amended. He could not, however, agree at all with the sentiment, that there was nothing disgraceful in putting into your constitution and laws, a distinction between the rich and the poor, so far as it related to the sub ject of education. He admitted that there was nothing disgraceful in poverty, and he was not speaking of any disgrace which attached to it; but he was speaking of the disgrace which would attach to your law givers, who would create distinctions on the subject of education between the rich and the poor, and he could not view it in any other light.

Sir, what do provisions of this kind create? They do create one rank, composed of the wealth of the land, and another of the plebeiars and poor. Does it not create distinctions in society, to require that the names of the poor who are taught at these schools, have to be recorded on the archives of the county, some half dozen of times, and there to remain forever before they can obtain that education which ought to be free as the air to every human being in society. When you are going to enter persons in a poor house, it may be necessary, that, their names should be recorded on the county record; but, before you extend that to them, which should be extended to every man under liberal laws; before you extend that to them, which is to be the protection of all our institetions, to say that they shall become subjects of recorded poverty, was w his mind, disgraceful.

Sir, there is an honest pride existing in the bosom of many of our citizens which makes then draw back from sending their children to por schools, to have them looked upon as paupers in the land-a laudable pride that has existed, and should be encouraged, rather than broken down.

Sir, these distinctions, which have been made by your laws, between the different classes of society-this setting up on one side, those pos sessed of wealth, and branding another class as plebeians and poor, has broken down the spirit of many of your young men, and lowered them in their own estimation. It was in vain for gentlemen here to say that they did not look upon this as a disgrace. The young mind is not pos sesed of this kind of philosophy to bear it up, and support it in the trial that it has to pass through. Those minds that have to pass through the degradation to which poor scholars have had to pass, under our law, will be degraded, unless possessed of very extraordinary strength. I this class of your citizens to have instilled into their minds, from child. hood, that they are inferior to another class?

Sir, this should not be. Every system of education in a free country, should be open to all without inquiring into their wealth or their poverty and to tell us that it is no disgrace in the law giver, to mark out in your constitution, the lines of wealth and poverty, was to his mind, not in accordance with that spirit of liberty, which should prevail in every free country.

Where was the necessity of retaining now in the constitution, the iden

that there are ranks in our country, founded upon no inferiority in merit, but upon the simple question of how much more one child's father owns in dollars and cents, than another. He admitted that it was no disgrace to be poor, but it was a disgrace to him who called his neighbor a pauper. There was no disgrace in being the son of a poor man or a drunkard, but it was disgraceful in that man who would tell the child that his father was a drunkard and a pauper. Then, if it was a disgrace for a man to do this, in moments of excitement, how much more disgraceful was it in legislators, after the calm consideration of the subject, to adopt a provision which would require that the names of a portion of your citizens should forever stand on record as paupers.

He could not agree at all to this doctrine, which had been advanced by the gentleman from Allegheny ; but not desiring to occupy the time of the committee, longer, he would merely say that he should vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Bucks, and every other which may be submitted until we had a direct vote upon the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia county.

Mr. CUMMIN said, he did not now rise to throw any light upon this subject, but merely wished to know what the question pending was, and would ask the secretary to read it. [The secretary then read the amendment to the amendment as follows: "The legislature shall, as soon as conveniently may be, provide, by law, for the establishment of common schools throughout the state, in such manner, that all the children in the commonwealth may be taught therein."] Mr. C. said he could not see the distinctions in this amendment, laid down by the gentleman from Adams, and did not believe but this amendment was better than it had been represented to be.

But, as he had before said, he did not rise to illustrate this subject, nor say any thing with respect to this amendment. He merely had risen to rejoice at what he never expected to have in his power to rejoice at, in this hall.

Sometime past, when the subject of the right of suffrage was before the convention, the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. Stevens) with great force and energy, did classify the people of this commonwealth, and brought down some of them to the lowest ebb, and would not agree, that they should exercise the rights of citizens of the state; because, as he alleged, they had slept in barns and hog pens. He was rejoiced, however, to find, that although the gentleman was opposed to universal suffrage, and to giving the poor man a chance to vote, yet he had now extended his views so far that he would carry education to every man's door.

Now, these two rights ought to go hand and hand, the right of univer sal education, and the right of universal suffrage, and there should be no distinction between them; and because the gentleman had changed his views thus far, he hoped he would hereafter go with him in favor of universal suffrage.

At this period in Mr. C's remarks, the hour of one o'clock having arrived, the committe rose; and,

The Convention adjourned.

MONDAY AFTERNOON, NOVEMBER 13, 1837.

SEVENTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. REIGART in the chair, on the report of the committee to whom was referred the seventh article of the constitution.

The question being on the motion of Mr. JENKS, of Bucks, to amend the amendment as modified, by striking therefrom all after the word "legislature," and inserting in lieu thereof the words as follows, viz: "shall, as soon as conveniently may be, provide by law for the establish ment of common schools throughout the state, in such manner that all the children of this commonwealth may be taught therein."

Mr. CUMMIN resumed his remarks as follows:

Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose this morning, I believe I was remarking on the wonderful change which had taken place in the conduct of the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. Stevens) in relation to the general right of suffrage in the people, and the new clause which he is desirous to introduce into the constitution. I hope I may be permitted here to refer to the time he was uttering his denunciations against all those who were not possessed of property to pay taxes-when he would have closed the door against citizens of respectability and character, while he opened it to men who had neither character nor respectability; this was not well. Bet since that time, Mr. Chairman, a most miraculous change has " over the spirit" of that gentleman, and according to my view, there was a very good reason for it. An election has taken place in the county of Adams since that time, and if I am not greatly mistaken, the gentleman obtained his election by the votes of the very people whom he was desi rous to exclude from the right of suffrage. We have a list of the taxables before us, and of the votes which the gentleman received for the last year, and the present.

come

The CHAIR here interrupted Mr. C. and stated, that this course of argument was not exactly in order. The question before the committee was on the amendment to the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Bucks county, (Mr. Jenks.)

Mr. CUMMIN resumed. I shall endeavour, Mr. Chairman, to get at that question before I take my seat. In the mean time, I am about to shew the inconsistency of the gentleman from Adams: and I will not trespass long on the attention of the committee in doing so.

I have looked over the list of taxables of Adams county, for the year 1835 and 1836; and I find that there was no township in that county, the number of the voters in which, amounted to the number which the gentleman from Adams had received, by some hundred votes; and it ap pears farther that at the last election-at which time there was a rail road constructing in that neighborhood-the votes exceeded those given at the previous election, by two to one all out.