reform. He would state further. There had been no vote of any party in Pennsylvania in favor of a change in the Constitution, or what is vaguely called reform. When the question was put, shall there be a change, or shall there not? shall there be a Convention, or, shall there not? where were your great democratic counties of Berks and Northampton, represented by the learned gentleman who had been so seriously taken to task this morning, for the expression of heterodox doctrines? When that vote was taken, these most powerful democratic counties gave a vote against a Convention of two or three to one. It was true, when a Convention was decided upon, and delegates came to be elected, they elected delegates to the Convention, and it was true they elected them in accordance with their party predilections. So of other great democratic counties. But, he repeated, there has been no party vote in favor of a Convention. Take from the democratic party in Pennsylvania, the majorities against a Convention, in the great Democratic counties, and give them to the opposing party, and that party would become predominant by a great majority. This is proof that there never has been a party vote in favor of a Convention. There has never, therefore, been a fair, decisive vote of the people, nor a vote of a party in its favor. Still less could it be said, that there was a majority in favor of any particular changes, or, even of any change at all. There were, in the State, individuals more or less numerous, perhaps some of all parties, who were in favor of certain reforms, and it may be, that in some instances, delegates were elected with a view to such changes; but they were not sent here with any specific instructions, but only for the purpose of deliberating, and if, after mature deliberation and reflection, they should deem it right to make amendments, then, and then only to do so. Now, the result of all this goes to show, that we are where we ought to be; where a full and free disscussion of the Constitution can be gone into; and it is clear that there ought to be no alterations made except on grounds fully debated, considered and agreed upon, on full conviction of their expediency, at least. We were not sent here to debate questions on party grounds. The question of a Convention was not decided on party grounds. A majority in many of the large Democratic counties were opposed to alteration, and opposed to a Convention, yet there were other counties where the other party predominates, which were in favor of alterations. Portions of parties, opposed in other respects, made the majority (such as it was) in favor of a Convention. We were not here, then, upon party grounds; neither are we here with any instruction to change; but we are here to examine the Constitutionto discuss and determine whether it shall or shall not be altered, and unless we are perfectly satisfied in our clear judgments, that a change ought to be made, we are to let it stand as it is. Give back to the people the Constitution under which they have been free, prosperous and happy.

These were his views, which he had deemed it his duty to give to the Convention; and he wished to be permitted to say that he felt, in ordinary cases, the occupation of the Chair was honor and employment enough for any one; and, that it generally restrained presiding officers from coming often before the body to address it; but he held this Convention to be different from ordinary legislative bodies. While he was willing to allow to others unlimited debate, he hoped the committee would excuse him for having, within the last few days, trespassed upon them so

cle by article, we test it by itself--we try it by any thing we can project as a substitute. As far as we have gone, we find it to be good-better than any thing we can offer in its place. One article has been passed over, and probably this will be a second, as requiring no alteration. Whether we are wiser than those who framed it, or not, we do not think, as far as we have gone, that it can be improved. We have tried to change, and we find the change would be for the worse. The Constitution has thus proved itself wiser than we are, even to our own partial judgments. The Constitution speaks for itself, and fairly examined, it does not demand anything like a submissive respect, merely because it is the Constitution. When we find anything to change, then most certainly, should we come to the conclusion, that we are wiser than the framers of the Constitution of Pennsylvania Whether we are, or not, I cannot say,GOD only knows. Time, which tests the value of every work of man in the world, will show what is valuable, and what is not. And, when we come to make alterations in this Constitution--if any we should make-differing in speculative judgment from those who made it-I do sincerely hope that the next 50 years may bear as good proof in favor of our work, as the past half century has done for those who framed it. If, fifty years hence, our posterity can assemble here, as we are now assembled, with no practical bad operation to point out--with no more evidence to bring before a Convention than we have, that the working of the Constitution has been evil--if they can come here merely to speculate, as we are doing -to see whether a promise be better than performance-whether a Constitution which has proved itself good by fifty years trial, is to be abandoned for an untried theory-if they can be as free in this respect, as we are now, it will be a strong argument in favor of what we shall have done. I hope it may be so. But I fear, if we make alterations, it will

not.

Sir, the good people of this Commonwealth have enjoined upon us respect for that Constitution; and, it is committed to us not for the purpose of making a change in it, but committed to us to propose alterations in those parts that we think require amendments. And, I may be allowed to say, according to my opinion of the manner in which it has been committed to us with no declaration on the part of the people of this State, that they desire any particular alteration, unless we are fully convinced it will be for the better. They have not consented to stake their liberty and property-which they have always found secured and protected under this Constitution-upon the issue of experiments. A good Constitutions of too much value to be thus exposed.

He earnestly requested the attention of the Convention to this view. There never has been a vote of the people of Pennsylvania in favor of the call of a Convention. Look at it, sir-look at the vote. The whole people of Pennsylvania did not vote upon this question. The whole of those who ordinarily vote, did not vote upon it. The vote fell forty thousand short of that which was given for Governor. This number were against a change, or were entirely indifferent about it, which amounts to the same thing. They did not desire a change, or they would have said so. These forty thousand, then, more than overbalanced the majority of 13,000, who voted in favor of the measure. There had, then, been no vote of the people of Pennsylvania in favor of this question of

reform. He would state further. There had been no vote of any party in Pennsylvania in favor of a change in the Constitution, or what is vaguely called reform. When the question was put, shall there be a change, or shall there not? shall there be a Convention, or, shall there not? where were your great democratic counties of Berks and Northampton, represented by the learned gentleman who had been so seriously taken to task this morning, for the expression of heterodox doctrines? When that vote was taken, these most powerful democratic counties gave a vote against a Convention of two or three to one. It was true, when a Convention was decided upon, and delegates came to be elected, they elected delegates to the Convention, and it was true they elected them in accordance with their party predilections. So of other great democratic counties. Bnt, he repeated, there has been no party vote in favor of a Convention. Take from the democratic party in Pennsylvania, the majorities. against a Convention, in the great Democratic counties, and give them to the opposing party, and that party would become predominant by a great majority. This is proof that there never has been a party vote in favor of a Convention. There has never, therefore, been a fair, decisive vote of the people, nor a vote of a party in its favor. Still less could it be said, that there was a majority in favor of any particular changes, or, even of any change at all. There were, in the State, individuals more or less numerous, perhaps some of all parties, who were in favor of certain reforms, and it may be, that in some instances, delegates were elected with a view to such changes; but they were not sent here with any specific instructions, but only for the purpose of deliberating, and if, after mature deliberation and reflection, they should deem it right to make amendments, then, and then only to do so. Now, the result of all this goes to show, that we are where we ought to be; where a full and free disscussion of the Constitution can be gone into; and it is clear that there ought to be no alterations made except on grounds fully debated, considered and agreed upon, on full conviction of their expediency, at least. We were not sent here to debate questions on party grounds. The question of a Convention was not decided on party grounds. A majority in many of the large Democratic counties were opposed to alteration, and opposed to a Convention, yet there were other counties where the other party predominates, which were in favor of alterations. Portions of parties, opposed in other respects, made the majority (such as it was) in favor of a Convention. We were not here, then, upon party grounds; neither are we here with any instruction to change; but we are here to examine the Constitutionto discuss and determine whether it shall or shall not be altered, and unless we are perfectly satisfied in our clear judgments, that a change ought to be made, we are to let it stand as it is. Give back to the people the Constitution under which they have been free, prosperous and happy.

These were his views, which he had deemed it his duty to give to the Convention; and he wished to be permitted to say that he felt, in ordinary cases, the occupation of the Chair was honor and employment enough for any one; and, that it generally restrained presiding officers from coming often before the body to address it; but he held this Convention to be different from ordinary legislative bodies. While he was willing to allow to others unlimited debate, he hoped the committee would excuse him for having, within the last few days, trespassed upon them so

haps any gentleman in the body, in all matters which affected the interests of the people of the Commonwealth. In matters which related to the policy and politics of the Commonwealth, they might differ, but in that difference he trusted they should not have any cause of quarrel with each other. He was much pleased, that the gentleman from Crawford (Mr. FARRELLY) had expressed his views in relation to this subject, in the manner in which he had done this morning, and from the indications from that quarter, he trusted the Convention would be favored with other opinions which that gentleman seemed so abundantly able to express, when a proper time arrived for expressing them; and, he would say to the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'DoWELL) who had given the Convention his sentiments in so able and eloquent a manner, as had been said, the other day, by a very talented gentleman, he would extend to him the right hand of fellowship. Although they might be found ranged on different sides, in the political affairs of the State, yet, he trusted, in relation to matters connected with reform in the fundamental law, and with the reform of the judiciary of the State, as had been evinced by the discussion of the question now pending, they would be found going hand in hand to all reasonable lengths. Not for the breaking down of all the checks of the Government-not for the destruction of the independence of the judiciary, as no reasonable man, let him be called by whatever name he might, ever dreamed of sweeping away, from the bosom of the Commonwealth, the independence of the judiciary. No judicious man ever thought of doing SO. He, for his own part, was a reformer of errors and abuses, as he understood them, whether they related to the political or other departments of the Government, yet he did not desire that any thing should be done by the Convention, which should, in any way, cripple the independence of the judiciary. He would not, by actions of his, jeopard its independence. But wherein is that independence to be found? On what basis will you place it? Will you place it upon such a basis that it must be hedged about by some article in the Constitution, so as to make it impossible to approach it? Will you place it in the same relation to the people, as the laws of DRACO were placed, on pillars so high that the people could not read them, and then condemn them by those laws, of which they knew nothing.

Let the judiciary department inspire the people with confidence, and there is no danger of the independence of the judiciary. Let them love as they desired to be beloved, and there was no danger of the independence of the judiciary being destroyed, and Heaven forbid that it should be! As to this matter of change, of which there had been so much said, he would only say, that he did not go for change merely for the sake of change. When the gentleman from Northampton (Mr. PORTER) was crying out change! change! change! Mr. B. was reminded, very forcibly, of the anecdote of the Tory against whom PATRICK HENRY had cried out beef! beef! beef! Whether the gentleman had intended this as a parody on that, without intending more, Mr. B. did not know, and would leave it for the gentleman himself to say, but if any of us were made to writhe either on the one side of the House or the other, he did not think he would feel very comfortable, knowing, as he (Mr. B.) did, that gentlean's usual urbanity of character. However, friends sometimes wound