T Mr. SILL, of Erie, asked for a division of the question: the vote to be taken first on the appointing power, ending with the word "governor." The question was then taken on the first branch of the amendment, and decided in the negative-yeas 30, nays 89. YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Cunningham, Denny, Dickerson, Dunlop Harris, Hiester, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kerr, Lyons, M'Call, M'Sherry, Me edith, Merkel, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Royer, Russell, Scott, Snively, Young -30. NAYS Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curl, Darrah, Dickey, Dilinger, Donagan, Donnel, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gam ble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Chen, M'Dowell, Merrill, Miller, Montgomery, Nevin, Ove field, Pollock, Porter, of NorthI ampton, Purviance, Regart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Sill, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Weaver, Woodward-89. Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, hoped the gentleman from Philadelphia city would accept the second branch as a modification. Mr. CHANDLER accepted the modification accordingly. Mr. INGERSOLL said it was not his intention to embark in the storm of commotion which had prevailed here. Neither did he suppose that any thing he could say would have any great effect in producing tranquility. He thought, from the very strong indications which had been exhibited, that the substitute which he had moved for the proposition of the committee, was destined to fail. He really expected so; but still he deemed it a matter of consequence to say a word or two only before the committee rose, because it seemed to him, that in the tempest of passion, which had raged, gentlemen had lost sight of the true question. It should be borne in mind, that this was the first time this subject was ever acted on, organically, in the state of Pennsylvania. He wished that fact to be impressed upon the mind of every gentleman. There was no provision of the kind in the constitution of 1790. He meant to say, that at that time, the subject of education was but little, if at all, thought of in the states south of New England. It was a mere nullity inserted in the charter, and was not acted on for twenty-five, thirty, or forty years. We were now acting on it for the first time, and intended it to form a part of our frame of government. He was aware that for some years past, the subject of education had claimed the attention of all the free countries in Europe. It was a new, and, indeed, a great and growing subject; and gentlemen had now gravely and deliberately discussed whether it should be inserted in the constitution or not. He must confess that when he heard his friend from Indiana, (Mr. Clarke) say that it was a subject fit only for the action of the legislature, it struck as a discord upon his ear. He regarded this as a subject which ought to be treated with the greatest care, and one respecting which he should think he had not done his duty, if he did not put on record some thing more than his vote. He wished to know what was the fear which some gentlemen entertained of vesting the legislature with power over this highly important subject. What was the argument against bestowing this power? Suppose we analyzed it, in all fairness and candor-without partiality, and without passion. The gentleman from Beaver (Mr. Agnew) said, here was a system in full march, and you endanger it by introducing any change; it is wel enough as it is, and you had better let well alone. What, he asked, had been said by his friend from the city, (Mr. Chandler) and the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) that this view of the matter was predicated upon an apprehension of the popular judgment. He (Mr. I.) never did,never would, and never could, act upon that apprehension, because be could sincerely say that he felt no fear, nor did he wish to indulge in it It was an idle apprehension to harbor, particularly in a country like ours, where the people's sovereignty was acknowledged, that they are not to be trusted. Had the people shown any objection to entrusting this powe to the legislature? No, they had shown none whatever. It had been said that this was a questiou of taxation, and not of educa tion. It was not that the people do not wish to be educated. The diff culty was with the rich, and not with the low and the humble. The question was not what we should do to make this matter acceptable to the common people, only, but to all classes of society, and at the same time not give a pretext to the rich to increase the amount of their taxation upon the poor, which, he believed was in some parts of the state consid ered onerous. What, then, he inquired, was it we proposed to do! Why, to put into our constitution what was to be found in almost every state constitution, a provision in relation to education. Let gentlemen turn to their book of constitutions, and they would see that the revised constitution of New York, as well as the constitution of Michigan, adopt ed but the other day, provides for the education of the people. The gentleman from Erie, (Mr. Sill) informed the convention, very truly, that in Prussia, the subject of education was entrusted to, and placed under the superintendence of one of the highest officers of the government. He (Mr. Ingersoll) hoped that that disposition would be made of it under our own state government. The gentleman from Centre, (Mr. Smyth) and others, had spoken of the expense attending this system of education. Was there ever such an egregious mistake. would say nothing more about the expense. He hoped that gentlemen intendent would not be more than fifteen hundred dollars, or two thousand Why, the salary of a superdollars a year, and he could not save less than one hundred thousand dol lars or two hundred thousand dollars, per annum to the state. The great object now in view was to put the system of common school education upon such a foundation, as to be as perfect as could be desired, while, at the same time, it would be carried on, in the most economical manner, One of the principal objects we had in view was to educate those who were to teach others. The great difficulty was not to obtain boys and girls, but to get them educated. We wanted a superintendent to look after those who were to be the schoolmasters; to prevent the squandering of money incident to a new and untried system; and to make a general report at every session of the legislature, so that the people may learn how the system works. Mr. I. gave way, without concluding, to a motion for the committee to rise. The committee accordingly rose, and reported progress; and, 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 amendment offered by Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, to so much of the report of the committee as relates to the second section of the said article, being under consideration. Mr. INGERSOLL expressed a hope that the gentleman from Philadelphia would accept as a modification, an amendment to strike out board of commissioners," and insert "commissioner." He had little to say; he hoped when the article came up on its second reading, the subject would find more favor with the convention. He had brought with him the New York constitution of 1830, and that of Michigan framed last year. He hoped gentlemen would give attention to the subject. He particularly called attention to the constitution of New York, where a whole page of details would be found on the subject. Why do we appoint a treasurer by a constitutional provision only? He hoped gentlemen would examine the matter calmly. It was the first time this subject had been brought up in Pennsylvania. The appointment of a superintendent would be a saving of a great sum of money to the state. The subject was not considered unworthy of constitutional notice, and was not left entirely to the legislatures in New York and Michigan. Mr. CHANDLER said, the great object of this class of the friends of edu cation was to fix in the constitution some retaining power. He accepted the amendment of the gentleman from the county, and modified his amend ment accordingly. The question was then taken on the amendment to the report of the committee as modified, and was determined in the negative, as follows, viz: YEAS--Messrs. Baldwin, Banks, But'er, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey Clapp, Cline, Cochran, Craig, Cummin, Cunningham, Doran. Farrelly, Gamble Grenell, Hyde, Ingersoll, M'Cahen. Merrill, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Riter, Royer, Russell, Serrill, Sill, Stevens, Thomas―30. NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, 1 Carey, Chambers, Chand'er, of Chester, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Dauphin, Mr. CRAIG, of Washington, moved to amend the said section by striking there from all after the word "in," in the second line, to the end, and inserting in lieu thereof the words as follow, viz: "one or more manual labor seminaries of learning." The question being on the amendment. Mr. FARRELLY said, he was opposed to the amendment adopted. He was in hopes that some amendment would have been adopted, similar to that proposed by the gentleman from Philadelphia. The present amendment to promote education by the means of the establishment of manual labor schools would not, he feared, have the effect desired. It would tend to lower the standard of education. Many branches of science were omitted altogether in the manual labor schools, and nothing like a complete education could be obtained at them. The standard of educa tion, already too low, would be reduced still lower by the encouragement of these schools. He did hope that we should put something in the con stitution expressive of the sentiment that the legislature should afford encouragement to the higher branches of education. He was not prepared, at present, to give his views fully upon this interesting subject. Mr. STEVENS was pleased, he said, with the views presented by the gentleman from Crawford. The present constitution was nothing more than a dead letter in regard to educaion; and, he agreed that it was impossible to do any thing effectual for the promotion of the higher branches of education, without inserting a provision for the incorporation and endowment of colleges. But, he hoped the gentleman would post pone his proposition, for the present, until we had time to reflect maturely upon the subject. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, did not, he said, rise to support the amendment of the gentleman. He rather wished it to be withdrawn ; but he did not wish to be sup posed to dispute the utility of manual labor schools; and, he would bring forward proof to the gentleman from Crawford, that they did not always lower the standard of education. There was a manual labor school in Easton, and it turned out the best scholars in Pennsylvania. They were, in fact, calculated to raise the standard of education, instead of depressing it. He could satisfy the gentleman that the opinion which he had hastily taken up as to the effect of manual labor schools was incorrect. The sys tem had been tried, and its results were such as to entitle it to the admiration and approbation of all. He knew there was a difference of opinion on the question, because few had witnessed the effects of the system. He was willing, however, to let the matter alone; to leave it to the people and the legislature of Pennsylvania to do as they pleased on the subject; and to suffer the manual labor system to work its own way into public favor, according to its merit. Mr. CRAIG said, the amendment went to enjoin it upon the legislature to establish one or more manual labor schools in the state; but it did prohibit the legislature from establishing any other kind of school or college. But it enjoins it upon them specially to attempt the promotion of science in one particular way, by way of experiment. The gentleman from Crawford alleged, that a proper education was inconsistent with the manual labor plan, and that the encouragement of the system would tend to depress the standard of education. If labor was a disgrace to any man in the commonwealth, then this was true. If education was inconsistent with labor, then the gentleman was correct. Yet, still, even if the system be not the best for a complete education, if it is an economical mode of education, ought it not to be encouraged. Might not this be a very good way of supplying cheaply the means of a good education to a vast number of those whose resources would not justify a highly finished education, and whose pursuits would not justify nor require the expense or time which would be necessary in obtaining a complete education. But we have heard from the gentleman from Northampton, who lives near a manual labor school, and whose testimony is adequate on this subject, that the manual labor system has been highly successful—that it has elevated, instead of depressing, the stan 'ard of education, and that it has made as good scholars as any other system which has been in operation in this state. Why, then, should we not encourage a system which promises so well, at least, so far as to make an experiment, with only two schools, as proposed in the amendment? It was not surprising that gentlemen, = educated in a different way, should not relish this mode of acquiring knowledge. Should we not promote industry as well as education? Young men, and old men, were disposed to be idle and to indulge themselves in habits of indolence. But, if the manual labor system promoted habits of industry and improved the physical energies, it was well worthy of our adoption. He knew of nothing better calculated to strengthen the powers of the mind, than the exercise of the body. So far as bodily exercise was calculated to promote the health of the student it must certainly be beneficial. For a sound mind it was necessary that there should be also a sound body. Regular labor, too, had a tendency to draw young men into habits of industry, almost involuntarily. He appealed to any gentlemen for the fact, whether any other description of school possessed this advantage to the extent of the manual labor schools. It would be found, too, that wherever the manual labor schools had been established, they had succeeded, to admiration,-making good scholars, promoting health and industry, and cheerfulness, and costing but very little in comparison with other schools. If such were its results, why should not the system be adopted and encouraged by the commonwealth? These schools possessed another advantage. They were calculated to promote the mechanic arts. Every young man came out of the school an ingenious and industrious mechanic. Would not this be advantageous both to the individuals and to the com monwealth? Would it not give them a means of acquiring a living and |