instruction of all persons? He thought such a provision as this, laid the section open to objections.

It is exposing it to an objection which does not exist in this amendment. The amendment which he had offered, conformed to the language of the constitution, and was plain and perspicious.

Mr. FORWARD asked, whether any man apposed to the system of common schools, as now established by law, could vote for this clause, and whether its insertion in the constitution, would not endanger its adop tion by the people?

Mr. CHAMBERS said, in reply, that it must rest with the understanding and the wishes of the voters, whether they would take the amended con stitution or not, after it was offered to them. There are many other provis ions in it, which to many persons are objectionable, and it must be for the consideration of every man, whether he will forego mere objections to the instrument, and take it as a whole.

Mr. READ withdrew his amendment.

The question then recurring on the motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, to amend the section by substituting for it the following:

"The legislature shall continue to provide by law for the establishment of common schools, throughout the state."

Mr. FORWARD asked the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, renewed his motion, to amend the amendment so as to read as follows:

"The legislature shall continue to provide by law, for education in public schools, of all persons in this commonwealth."

The question being taken, it was decided in the negative-yeas 31, nays 85, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Banks, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Phi'ade'phia, Butler, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Cline, Crain, Cummin, Fleming, Gamble, Hast ings, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hyde, Ingersoll, Kennedy, Lyons, Martin, M'Cahen, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Serril, Smith, Stevens, Weaver, Woodward.-31.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz. Bedford, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Du phin, Clarke of Indians, Cleavenger, Coates, Cope, Crawford, Crum, Curll, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donrell, Doran. Dun'op Earle, Farrelly, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gearha t, Grenell, Haris, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Keim, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Maclay, Magee. Mann, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Ritter, Saeger, Scheetz, Sc tt. Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Smyth Snively, Sterige e, Stickel, Taggart, Thomas, White, Young-85. Mr. HIESTER remarked, that this subject had occupied a considerable time, and had elicited a great deal of d. bate, and very proper and instrue tive debate. Amendments embracing every view of the question, had been proposed and voted on and rejected; and there seemed to be in the committee a general disposition to let the provision of the old constitu tion stand, and to let well enough alone. To test the sense of the com mittee on that point, he now moved the previous question.

The CHAIR stated, that the main question was now upon the amend ment to the section, proposed by the gentleman from Franklin.

Mr. HIESTER Would, then, he said, withdraw the motion.

Mr. MARTIN hoped, he said, that the proposition now before the committee would be adopted Some amendmant to the consti ution on this subject was necessary. There was a difficulty in conducting the common schools under the present provisions of the school laws. The law required that a child could not be taken over thirteen years of age, and, in many cases, the difficulty had been avoided by putting down the age of the child at thirteen, when, in fact, it was eighteen. He thought some alteration of the general school system was necessary, and the provision now proposed would have a very beneficial effect.

Mr. MANN asked, of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Martin) whether the school system of his district was formed under the present law, or a law made a long while ago. He believed, he said, that the present law had no effect whatever upon the schools in the city and county of Philadelphia. He was in favor of adhering to the provisions of the old constitution in reference to educa

tion.

Mr. MARTIN replied, that it was true that the school system of the Philadelphia district, was formed under a law made a long time ago; but he supposed that the provision now adopted, as a part of the constitution, would be applicable to every school district in the state.

Mr. SHELLITO said, there had been a great deal of debate on this subject, and he trusted that the question would now be taken, and that it would be decided whether we should make any charge at all in our existing constitution on this subject.

Mr. KEIM had listened, he said, with some pleasure, and, also, with some impatience to this discussion, because, he thought it had been unnecessarily protracted. He was at first disposed to strike out the words "in such manner that the poor may be taught gratis," because, he knew very well that they had heretofore been a great objection, not to the constitution itself, for the great majority of the people of Pennsylvania never read the constitution-but it had been an objection to the school law, and a great obstacle to carrying out its provisions in detail. But, he believed, that the present school system, which had now been generally adopted in the state, had done away with objections, and that it had been lost sight of in a great measure. After hearing all the arguments and facts on every side of the question, he was now disposed to vo.e against every amendment, and to adhere to the existing provision on the subject. There were strong objections to all the alterations that had been proposed, and he believed it would be unsafe to alter the clause, as it stands, in any way. It would be hazardous to make any change, for the people would hardly be disposed to sustain the constitution offered them, if there was any material change on this subject. There was no doubt on the minds of any one, that the present system was working very well, and he was of opinion that it would be best to leave it as it was, not doubting that it would soon work its way into general favor and success.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, said, that, in order to test the sense of the committee, on the question whether they were in favor of the old constitution, omitting the clause providing that the "poor" be "taught gratis," he would offer the following amendment, in lieu of the proposition before the committee.

"The legislature shall, as soon as conveniently may be, provide by law, for the establishment of schools throughout the state." These were the words of the present constitution, leaving out the next clause; in such manner that the poor may be taught gratis."

Mr. M'CAHEN asked the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

Mr. FORWARD remarked, that the proposition would test the question of continuing the provision designating the poor, but it was liable to all the other objections which had been urged against the section, and it would raise the very disturbance which we had deprecated. The question being taken on the motion, it was decided in the negative—yeas 33, nays 83, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Banks, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chandler, of Philadel phia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Farrelly, Fleming, Fou'krod, Fuller, Gamble, Helffenstein, Hopkinson Houpt, Long, Lyons, Martin, M'Cahen, Reigart, Riter Russell, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, Stevens, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward,-33.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Butler, Carey, Chambers, Chauncey, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Darrah, Denny, Dickey. Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Dunlop, Earle, Forward, Fry, Gearhart, Grenel', Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin. Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks. Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay, Magee, Mann, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Saeger, Scheetz, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Sill, Smyth, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel Thomas, White, Young,-82.

The question then being on the amendment, offered by the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers,)

Mr. MAGEE moved to amend the same by adding to it the words fol lowing:

But no imperative power shall be invested in the legislature, to compel the establishment of such schools."

The hour for the usual recess having arrived, the committee rose and reported progess; and,

The Convention adjourned.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON, November 14, 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.

• but no

The question being on the motion of Mr. MAGEE, of Perry, to amend the amendment, by adding thereto the following words, viz: imperative power shall be vested in the legislature to compel the establishment of such schools."

Mr. MAGEE, of Perry county, said that he had risen for the purpose of explaining, as briefly as he could, the reasons which had induced him to offer his amendment. They were these; to obviate the objections which existed, on the one side, to the retention of the words, "so that the poor may be taught gratis ;" and, on the other hand, to do away with the fear which some members of the convention entertained that, if those words should be stricken out, the effect would be to set the non-accepting districts against the new constitution which was now about to be framed.

I am myself, said Mr. M., in favor of striking out these words; and, if the committee will adopt the proviso which I have offered, I am of opinion that all the difficulty will be overcome, so far at least as the nonreceiving districts are concerned. The legislature would thus be restrained from forcing the school system upon these districts, where a majority of the people were opposed to its introduction. He hoped that this proviso would be adopted.

Mr. M'CAHEN said, that he hoped the amendment to the amendment, would not receive the sanction of the committee. Whenever an opportunity had presented itself, (said Mr. M'C.), I have voted on the most liberal principle in reference to the subject of public education; and I call upon the members who are associated with me in this convention, when they are about to pass on a question of such vital interest, not to manifest so much tenacity about the prejudices and the fears of their constituents. Sir, I came into this body as a reformer; and I regret to say that, among us, there are a great number who are opposed to the introduction of any liberal principle into the constitution on this subject of education. If those who declare themselves to be in favor of liberal principles, are not also in favor of liberal education, I must cease to be a reformer. I shall go in favor of the broadest proposition which this body will adopt; and I can not bring my mind to believe that those gentlemen who will vote for liberal amendments to the constitution, will be found to record their votes against a liberal system of education. Every consideration of public morals and public policy requires that such a system should be established and fostered throughout our commonwealth.

This is a subject, Mr. Chairman, in which I feel a very deep interest. I hope that we all feel that interest, which every parent and guardian ought to feel in improving the condition of society, and making it such as

every intelligent and patriotic mind must wish to see it, and that we shall lend our aid to the establishment of such a system as will one day call forth the gratitude of our whole people. I can not believe that the provision of the constitution of 1790, was the means of producing the present system of education. It remained a dead letter for many years. The existing system of common school education is probably the best which could have been introduced for the present time; but I also believe that in those districts were the law was accepted, the people had gained so much knowledge through it, that they would not now be afraid to meet the question on a broader scale. I hope that some better proposition than we have yet had will be brought forward. As the matter stands at present, I shall vote in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers.) In my section of the country there are no prejudices to overcome-no fears to allay in reference to the subject of education. There is a prejudice, however, against the word "poor;" but we can over-look this with more propriety than we can an objection to a school law that is calculated to educate all the children of the commonwealth. I hope that the liberal members of this convention will seize upon the opportunity which offers itself, to adopt the best measure in their power. I have no fear that the people will reject it. I believe, on the contrary, that they will readily adopt it.

Mr. EARLE said that he could not vote in favor of the amendment to the amendment, as proposed by the gentleman from the county of Perry, (Mr. Magee;) but if that gentleman would consent so to modify it, as to add to the end of the proviso, the words "in any district against the consent of the people thereof," he (Mr. E.) was willing to vote for its adop tion.

But, (said Mr. E.) I rose principally with the view to correct an error into which the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. M'Cahen) has fallen, in supposing that any of the reformers in this onvention are opposed to the introduction of liberal provisions into the constitution, in regard to public education. This, sir, is a mistake; or, at least if there be such, I do not know the fact. The reformers of this body are willing to have liberal provisions, and they are willing that those provisions should be placed in the new constitution. But they fear that the people are not yet ripe for such action. They certainly will be so at some future day, and such a provision as is here spoken of will be introduced into the consti tution. But, as things now stand, we do not wish to endanger all the amendments which we shall send to the people for their approval or rejection, by introducing an improper system of education.

Mr. STEVENS said it appeared to him, that notions of reform had taken such deep-rooted hold on the mind and feelings of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Earle) that he could scarcely give a mo ment's attention to any thing else, lest it might perchance have an injuri ous influence upon him.

If (said Mr. S.) the provisions of the constitution of 1790, in ragard to public education, are to be amended at all, I hope that these amendments will be as good, as broad, and as liberal as we can possibly compass. For my own part, I am willing now to pledge myself to vote in favor of submitting the article on education to the people, in a distinct and sepa rate form, so that we may have the direct vote of the people taken upon