shall be imposed on the electors in any city, county or district, than are imposed on the electors of every other city, county or district."

Mr. STERIGERE stated that this amendment was offered in committee of the whole, and was rejected by a small majority. The object was to prevent the legislature, in any circumstances from limiting the right of suffrage, by making it a common privilege, imposed alike on all. He would merely ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT, of Philadelphia, said this amendment was fully discussed in committee of the whole. It should be understood that its effect would be to destroy the registry law in the city and county of Philadelphia.

He did not propose to enter again into an argument on this question. But it would be remembered that, in the former debate, the evils which existed here before that law came into operation, were very emphatically pointed out. They were acknowledged, and after full discussion, a majority of the convention agreed that it was better not to interfere with the existing law. It was also acknowledged that these evils were felt in other parts of the state, and under the belief that something of the same kind was required for the peaceful exercise of the elective franchise, wherever there was denseness of population, the amendment was rejected. The law of registry may be altered and improved, but the existence of something of the kind is necessary where dense masses are collected. He hoped therefore, that the convention would suffer this matter to rest where it is, and leave the legislature to act according to its discretion, as circumstances may indicate, and not make it imperative on that body, in all cases, to enact the same legislation for a thin and a dense population-where there is but a single individual in a space of a quarter of a mile square, and where the population is crowded together.

Such would be the effect of the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery. We have adopted provisions which may not be suited to all parts of the state, but they operated beneficially here, and he hoped they would not be interfered with.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, knew no reason why the law should be different in one part of the state, from what it is in another, whether there are many thousands or a few hundreds, they are under the same laws. If there are too many together, the districts may be made smaller, that every man may be able to go to the window or door, and deposit his vote.

He hoped that special legislation would not be permitted here. Another clause in the constitution says that a voter must have been assessed not less than ten days before the election. The assessor's books must be the best evidence of this fact. He hoped the city and county of Philadelphia would not be singled out and made the cause for the imposition of restraints on the right of suffrage which have not been asked for by the people.

Mr. COATES, of Lancaster, demanded the previous question, and the number required by the rule having risen to second it, the call was sustained.

The question being

"shall the main question now be put?"

Mr. M'CAHEN demanded the yeas and nays on this question, and they were ordered.

The question was then taken and decided in the affimative as follows, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Ayres, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndoller, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Chochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Farrelly, Fuller, Gearhart, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Keim, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrell, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Snively Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Young-69.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clark, of Indiana, Cummin, Darrah, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Fry, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Helffenstein, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kennedy, Krebs, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Overfield, Payne, Reigart, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Weaver, Weidman, Woodward, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tempore-42.

The following section being taken up for cousideration, and no amendment being made thereto, the report of the committee was agreed to. "SECTION 5. That elections shall be free and equal."

The sixth section was read, and being under consideration in the words as follow, viz:

"SECTION 6. The trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate."

Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia, moved to amend by adding to the end thereof the words as follow, viz:

"It shall be granted to all persons who may be arrested as fugitives from labor, and who shall claim to be freemen."

Mr. B. said the question which had been submitted to the consideration of the convention, was undoubtedly one of high importance, and he trusted that it would be considered calmly, and determined after that dispassionate reflection its importance demanded. Occasion had been taken, in the course of the debate in this body, to recur to the relative situation of the northern, western, and southern states. He never had, he never would utter a single syllable of unkindness towards that portion of our Union whose misfortune it had been to have inflicted on them the curse of slavery. He thought there was no section of the country where the flame of liberty was purer, or where it burned with a more ardent flame. Nor did he think there was any portion of the Union where there was cherished a stronger desire to improve the condition of the coloured race, and prepare thom for their emancipation.

Having said thus much, he must say, that a disposition existed among the people of that section to assert their rights against other parts of the Union. And, he trusted that while we saw the people of other parts of the country jealous of their rights, we would be equally tenacious of our own, and careful to avoid wounding the feelings of citizens of other sections of our republic. It was not necessary that he should at this day and on this floor, pass any eulogy on the trial by jury-that best safe. guard of the rights, liberties and lives of the citizens of this free country.

The principle was engrafted on the constitution of the United States. It was also contained in the constitution of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and he believed of every state in the Union. This universal acquiescence in the principle was the best proof of its excellence, and how dear it was to freemen, and how deeply they deemed it to be connected with the perpetuity of their rights.

Was there, he would ask, any necessity that an alteration should be made in the constitution in this particular? Was there any occasion for the insertion of this principle in the fundamental charter, unless it could be manifestly made out that the section, as it stands, is not sufficient to guard the rights, and to prevent men from being deprived of their liberty? In his opinion, then, a greater safeguard than now existed, was imperiously required.

This, however, was not a question which affected a peculiar class of the community alone; it was not a question which affected those only who had the misfortune to have a darker complexion than we have, but it was a question which might be brought home to all. There was no citizen here exempt from it. Every citizen was presumed to be free. Nobody in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania presumed another to be a slave. But, every man, at least prima fucie, was a freeman. All he (Mr. B.) asked was, that every man who claimed to be a freeman-who elaimed to be under the constitution and laws of Pennsylvania, a citizen, shall not be deprived of his liberty unless by the verdict of his fellow men, in his neighborhood, who shall have an opportunity of confronting his fellow men.

Did he (Mr. B.) ask any thing unreasonable? any thing that Pennsylvania was disposed to withhold? What! would any man in Pennsylvania have another deprived of his liberty-have the inestimable right of freedom taken from him, without a fair, open, and impartial trial by a jury of his peers? He could not-he did not believe it.

On motion of Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia,

The convention adjourned until half past nine o'clock to-morrow morning.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1838.

Mr. BALDWIN, of Philadelphia, presented a memorial from citizens of Philadelphia county, praying that the right of trial by jury may be extended to every human being:

Which was laid on the table.

Mr. FOULKROD, of Philadelphia city, presented a memorial of like import:

Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. SCOTT, of Philadelphia, presented a memorial of like import: Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, presented a memorial of like import:
Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. COPE, of Philadelphia, presented a memorial of like import:
Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia city, presented a memorial of like import:
Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. COCHRAN, of Lancaster, from the committee to whom were referred the amendments made to the constitution in convention on second reading, made report:

That they find the amendments to the second article correctly printed, with the exception of the word "up," in the sixth line of the eighth section, which they recommend to be stricken out as superfluous. The remaining sections of the said second article are submitted as they stand on the printed files.

And the said report was laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, from the committee to whom was referred the communication from the committee of the house of representatives, of the 31st ultino, on the subject of furnishing each of the members of the legislature now in session, and its officers, with a copy of the Debates of this convention, made report:

That inasmuch as the subject of the distribution of the debates of the convention had been disposed of by this body before the receipt of the said communication, it would lead to difficulties again to open the subject; and much disposed as this body might be to extend the desired courtesy to the members of that body, they could not do so without reconsidering, and thus undoing the action of the convention heretofore had on that subject. Your committee therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: viz:

Resolved, That the Secretary transmit a copy of this report to the honorable the House of Representatives, and that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

Mr. FRY, of Lehigh, offered a substitute to the report, which he afterwards withdrew.

Mr. CRAIG, of Washington, thought it uncourteous to refuse the request of the legislature. The reasoning of the report did not seem to sustain the conclusion. The copies are asked for by the legislature. They will not be ready for this legislature, but may be for the next.

Mr. Cox, of Somerset, thought the reasons for not complying with the request of the legislature were sufficient. The object seemed to be to obtain the copies for this legislature. He was not disposed to grant the request, because he was satisfied that the copies were desired for the benefit of the members individually, and not of the legislature.

Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, asked if there was any resolution which directed the manner in which the reports of the debates should be distributed?

The CHAIR replied, that a report had been adopted, reconsidered, and adopted again.

Mr CUMMIN, of Juniata, said that the books ought to be distributed in accordance with the views of the resolution, and that no change in regard to it should be made. The members of the present legislature who put in their claim for copies, were not better entitled to them than would be those of the next legislature. Copies of the debates would be distributed among the different prothonotaries' offices in each county of the state, where they would be open to every one. He would therefore vote against the amendment proposing to make a different disposition of the copies.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, found that he was in error, and the gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Cox) right-that each member of the legislature wanted a copy for himself. The delegate from Washington (Mr. Craig) if he could obtain a copy from each delegate of the convention, could have them distributed among the members of the legislature. But we could not take them from the delegates, unless we succeeded in obtaining a reconsideration of the resolution. This was the opinion of the committee. He thought as good a disposition had been made of the copies as could be made, and that the legislature had no right to claim any copies of us.

Mr. CRAIG, of Washington, moved to amend the resolution by striking therefrom all after the word "resolved," and inserting in lieu thereof the following, viz: "that the subject be recommitted to the committee with instructions to report in favor of the application of the state legislature."

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, said he was not inclined to give up his share of the copies, as he was the only representative of four thousand taxables. The number of copies required to be distributed among the members and officers of the legislature would amount to one hundred and forty-six copies. He wanted all his share of the copies, and therefore could spare

none.

Mr. JENKS, of Bucks, hoped that the subject would not be recommitted. He approved of the report of the committee, and believed that a most judicious distribution of the copies had already been made by the resolution already adopted. The principal object in view was, to have the copies placed in some public station, where the people of the commonwealth