Mr. GOURGAS, of Concord, moved, that when the question is taken, it be taken by yeas and nays.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. NAYSON, of Amesbury, inquired whether the vote about to be taken would apply to the whole series of resolutions, or only to the first of the series.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that the vote will be upon the whole series. It is competent, however, for the Convention to order a division.

Mr. NAYSON remarked, that the yeas and nays having been ordered to be taken, if the propositions were divided, they must necessarily be taken upon each. He would suggest, therefore, to the gentleman from Concord, the propriety of withdrawing, for the present, his call for the yeas and nays, so that propositions to amend might be submitted, if necessary, to the several resolutions as they came up, and that the yeas and nays be taken upon them subsequently.

Mr. GOURGAS. As I understand it, the whole matter now before the Convention is open to debate, and each and all of the resolutions subject to amendment. The resolutions may still be debated or amended before the taking of the vote, so that all difficulty on that score will be obviated.

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. Before the question is taken on the adoption of that series of resolutions, I wish to state very briefly, one or two considerations, which it seems to me should bring together upon this vote, all the friends of the reformation of the Constitution. I venture to make these suggestions, because I have perceived in the debate in Committee of the Whole, in which I have not participated, that some gentlemen of very sound opinions upon constitutional reform-my very able friend from Freetown, (Mr. Hathaway,) and others-whose opinions I respect very much, entertain a different view from myself upon this subject. I am desirous, if possible, that we should come to a good degree of unanimity on this question. The proposition is, whether the basis of representation shall be laid upon the whole people, or upon the voting people. The larger proposition is that which covers the whole people; and the smaller proposition is that which covers the voting people.

Mr. President, I am for progress, not for rashness, haste, nor destruction; but I am for taking no step backward in this Convention. I ask my friend from Freetown, if it is not taking a step backwards, to attempt to reduce the basis of representation from the whole people to a particular class? For forty years the friends of liberal prin- . ciples labored to abolish from the constitution the property qualification. They finally effected that to a certain extent. It then cost twenty years more to come from the ratable polls, which was the first amendment of the Constitution, to the present basis, of the entire population or inhabitants. There is the result of sixty years of progress. Will gentlemen go back twenty years? That is the question before us. I would rather go forward. That seems to me to answer the whole of that part of the question.

There is another question which has been introduced here, and in regard to which it is possible that I and some other gentlemen may have been misapprehended. It relates to that inquiry which it is so much casier to make than to answer, and which so many gentlemen have

made here and that is, Who are the people? The other day I answered the gentleman from Salem, (Mr. Lord,) who asked that question while he had the floor, just as I should answer any individual, upon the ground where he stood and proposed it. He proposed that question to me here-in Massachusetts-in this Commonwealth,- -Who are the people?" My answer to that is, the voting people; the people who, by your Constitution, participate in government. That is the answer to the question, "Who are the people," here. Your Constitution makes it so; and when you put out these amendments, or this new frame of government which we may adopt in this Convention, to what people will you send it? The provision of your Constitution is, that the amendments which are made shall be submitted to the people. To whom do you propose to submit them? Clearly to the voting people, and to nobody else. Then, where the Constitution speaks of people, it means, and can only mean, those who by that Constitution can have a right to participate in government. That is my answer to the question when it is put here, where we have a Constitution and a frame of government emanating from the whole people.

If that question were put to me by the distinguished exile and apostle of liberty-Kossuthin a foreign land, standing in Hungary I would answer, every rational human being in that country; because the people, in their original capacity, have never instituted government there. Their government has come from the principle of hereditary right, from legitimacy, from any source other than the true one-the people. The result of these definitions is simply this-that the term people is a relative term, applied according to the nature of the institutions where the inquiry is made. If it is made where no government has been instituted by the people, then they are the whole people-men, women, and children-with no exclusion. When they have instituted government by coming together in any manner which they think proper, then they have made a constitution, and have exercised the right every state has, to prescribe the capacity of its own citizens. That is the very condition of the compact; and whatever the compact makes the capacity of the citizen, through the action of the legal people, they are the people. They are the acting people, who made the government, and who have a right to come together and alter, abolish, and change it, in those forms which are contemplated by the Constitution. This is the American doctrine of peaceable revolution, through forms of constitutional action by the exercise of the sovereign will of the people, as distinct from a mere physical revolution. When men talk of the right of physical revolution, they talk of the rule of right in a savage state, or a despotism. The mere right of might. In such states revolution is produced only by a fighting majority. I am in favor of a voting majority making changes in government. That majority consists of all the people when they first institute government; but after they have once instituted it, it consists of all who participate in carrying on the government. It extends its protection to all, and therefore it is, because it extends its protection to all, you should make the basis of representation as large as possible, and that is the whole people. So that when you would ask me what I would make the basis of representation, I would tell you

[May 23d.

the largest possible circle within the range of the idea of man. When you ask me what shall be the action of the legal people within their government, I tell you it is what that Constitution has prescribed. When the people is so constituted, and when a legislature, so holding a delegated power refuses to act, or resist the people in reforming their government, then comes a revolution in this community, precisely as in any other country having no republican form of government. But when gentlemen talk of revolution in this Commonwealth, or in any State of this Union, let them consider, what any man will see when he looks at it, that a successful revolution in Massachusetts, or in any State of the Union, is an impossibility. Why is it an impossibility? Because you have a Constitution and a Government of the United States. What have you done in that Constitution of this Union? You have given the power to the supreme government of the United States, to determine and judge of cases of domestic violence within the State. The result is, therefore, that if you have a conflict between the people and the government in this State, or in any State, the President of the United States, and those acting with him, may determine that it is a case of domestic violence. What then? You will have the whole of the troops of the United States, the army and navy, come upon you, together with a portion of the citizens at home to join them. I say, therefore, that a revolution by force of arms is impossible.

Hence it was that I was so much alarmed at the tendency of the argument on another question, to which I may be permitted to refer, made by my learned friend from Cambridge, (Judge Parker,) an argument which led him directly to the foot of the gallows; and it was this, that here in this community, sitting as we do here to-day in this Convention, the legislature of this State might to-morrow morning order us out of our seats, and make our attendance here a penal offence, punishable by imprisonment, if we should dare to come and take our seats here and act as delegates. When the learned gentleman had arrived at that point there came up the spirit which he had imbibed from his own granite hills, and his near view of the Bunker Hill Monument. Said he, "Were they to do that, it would be a great outrage, and I am not sure but that I should join the revolutionists; at all events, it would be proper for the Convention to hold together and deliberate."

Mr. President, that is revolution; and the gentleman, was brought to that conflict of blood as it seems to me, merely by passing over the doctrine of what constitutes the rights of the American people in the changes of their government, and that in those changes the legislature is a mere instrument to frame laws, and for collecting the will of the people; and that when it is collected, it is conclusive and binding upon them, and no subsequent legislature can touch it. The moment you give power to the legislature to act after the people have acted, you come precisely where my friend came. Now, I do not come to the foot of the gallows, but I stand upon the broad platform of our right, as delegates of the people, who are the fundamental law-makers, to come here and propose fundamental laws for them to pass upon, and I deny the right of the legislature, or general court, or any other body to interfere after the people have sent us here, and said that the form

Monday,]

fealty to the king, while deposing his governors

and councils.

But a new state of things arose. They must have government. All their laws looked to the King and Parliament as the Government.

Where were they to look for the source of Government?

Virginia declared in her old Constitution "that the government of this country, as before exercised under the crown of Great Britian, was totally dissolved."

All the colonies, except Rhode Island and Connecticut, created forms of government for themselves.

No citizens who desired participation, or complained of exclusion, were prevented from taking part in establishing the Constitutions.

There was no preceding acts of existing governments establishing governments, but it came from the people. It was uniformly maintained in all the colonies, while forming themselves into independent States.

The people fought out this principle in the Revolution, and in all these cases the voting body were the majority, and we are enjoying it.

In each State, therefore, the new form of government was the act of a majority of the whole people-or the act of a portion acquiesced in by all. But because a majority have acquiesced, they are not bound forever. "The present is not the slave of the past.”

We thus have government established by popular sovereignity.

Then comes the question, is it irrevocable, or can it be changed? If the organic law provided for a change, that might answer all emergencies, especially if it made the majority the voters. But suppose no such provision, or that the once majority becomes the minority, and deny a voice in the government? What shall then be done? Where lies the sovereignty? In the government as subsisting, or in the whole people?

The answer is found in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and all American Commentators. Thus the sovereignty resides in the majority of the community, and cannot be surrendered, or ceded to the government, nor to the frame of government. But so long as the Constitution of government adopted by the people subsists, it is the fundamental law, and the legal people under it, are those who by the terms of the Constitution participate in the government. The whole people, when originally making a Constitution, may prescribe the capacity of its citizens under that Constitution.

In the language of Washington, "the basis of our political systems, is the right of the people to make and alter their Constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

And thus we arrive at two distinct definitions of the term people, which must be kept in view when answering the inquiry, who are the people. The one definition applicable to nations or communities at large, outside of institutions created by themselves, and the other to States, in which the people have instituted government, and subsist under their own Constitutions, which prescribe the capacity and qualifications of the citizens who shall participate in government. In the one case, the natural people, in the other, the legal people.

THE SENATE. MORTON.

These views, Mr. President, are submitted, merely that I may be understood upon these fundamental points, and that, if in my power, I may aid those who desire to arrive at correct conclusions in regard to their action in framing the new Constitution, which, while it secures to the people all their rights, shall not bring home upon us the charge of destructiveness or a desire to subvert good government. These views I submit to them and to this Convention; and I trust that in taking the vote we shall not go backward. I wish our basis to be made as broad as are the people, and when coming to vote upon that question, I trust we shall arrive as far as possible at a unanimous result.

Mr. MORTON, of Taunton. I rise, Mr. President, with a very great degree of reluctance, to address the Convention at this stage of the debate. I had a very strong desire, when the subject was brought to the attention of the Committee of the Whole, to go into an examination of the principles which should govern us in a decision of this question; but the kindness of the President aced me in a situation where it was then out of my power to give an expression of my views. I desire on the present occasion to do so; my reluctance to say anything has been overcome by the fact, that the debate was re-opened, and I have thus been led to desire to trouble the Convention with a few remarks at this time. There are two positions of an audience which are exceedingly unpleasant to a speaker-one of them, which I have heretofore had occasion to experience, is when the speaker undertakes to address a body of people whose intelligent minds he knows to be made up against the proposition which he wishes to advocate. In relation to the power of this Convention to summon in new members, I unfortunately differed from the majority of this body; but I felt it to be my duty to present my views, and I attempted to do so in an unfortunate place, where I was so imperfectly heard by the audience that I fear my positions were very little understood. I had intended on another occasion, to present those views, for I supposed that the debate on that subject would be prolonged for some length of time; but I subsequently found no opportunity. I am a great advocate for an unlimited freedom of debate. I think that I never in my life moved the previous question, nor do I expect ever to do so. I would by no means be understood as casting censure upon those who do it, for on many occasions it may be right for them to do so. I only mean to say, that it is something which I should be averse to use; just like some laws which might be mentioned, it may be best for the good of the community that they should be executed, but still I fear that if I should happen to find myself in a situation where I should be likely to be called upon to render any aid, I should lose no time in getting out of the way.

Another situation of an audience, which is perhaps even more unpleasant to the speaker than the one to which I have just alluded, is the situation of those to whom I now address myself, when I feel that the minds of almost all are made up in favor of the propositions that I desire to advocate. I almost feel as if I owe an apology for intruding upon the Convention upon this occasion; and yet, Sir, I have some notions, views and principles, which may not be altogether crude and unsound, and which are somewhat different from those that have been advanced; and with the in

[May 23d.

dulgence of the Convention, I will present them as briefly as may be in my power, for their consideration.

In examining the subject before us, two inquiries naturally present themselves to our minds, after reading the very carefully drawn and able Report which has been presented. One question upon that Report is, whether the proposition there advanced is well calculated to effect the object which the Report has in view; and the other question is, whether this object which the Report has in view is a right and just object. The object which the Report has in view is a basis of senatorial representation upon the people of the Commonwealth; and I think that the Report recommends one of the best modes of accomplishing that object. I would not alter more than two or three words in it, and that is a mere matter of taste. While I would not vary the object, I ould only seek to render the mode of accomplishing the object more certain and definite. I would have it provide, where it speaks of the formation of these districts in the first section, that they should be formed as nearly equal upon population as was practicable or possible without a division of the towns or wards; but I will not detain the Convention by going into details. I apprehend, Mr. President, that in this country the only basis upon which representation in either branch of our legislature should be founded, would be either ratable polls, legal voters, or population. Objections have been made to both the former modes I have mentioned. In the first place, ratable polls are not easily or accurately ascertained. We must bear in mind that ratable polls does not mean rated polls; it is extremely difficult to get in the return of all the ratable polls, from various causes, and where you have to depend on the agencies of so many people in getting your returns, there is of course a great uncertainty in obtaining the precise number. The same objection, in a still greater degree, may be urged against making the legal voters a basis of representation; for you have no means of ascertaining who are the legal voters of the Commonwealth. The voting lists afford no certain criterion, for there are hundreds and thousands entitled to vote, who, through the neglect of the proper officers, or through their own inattention, do not get their names put upon the voting lists. I think, therefore, that the inconvenience and uncertainty attending both these modes of fixing a basis of representation, render them exceedingly objectionable. The only mode of forming a correct basis of senatorial representation is then, upon population, or a mere enumeration of individuals, which, though perhaps never perfect, certainly approximates more nearly to perfection than any other mode which can be adopted.

Before going into an examination of this subject, I will briefly advert to one of the provisions of that Report, which I think exceedingly sound and useful. This is with regard to residence. You are to have forty single districts, and you are to have residents in those districts. I think it important that the senator should be a resident of the place which he represents, for it is the people and not the mere locality which he is to represent. In order that he may partake of the wishes, views, and feelings of his constituents, he ought to reside among them. This brings him nearer to the people, and enables him to understand their views better, while at the same time it enables them

Monday,]

to understand the views and qualifications of the persons for whom they cast their votes.

But, Sir, I will return to what I consider the principal question in this case; and although I do not intend to travel very widely over history and authorities, yet I feel constrained to go somewhat briefly into first principles. Doctrines have been advanced here which strike me as being extraordinary; and I must say, that certainly they are either untenable or I have been educated in a wrong school of politics. It has been contended here, and I suppose it will be again, that each member of the two branches of the legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives, represents the legal voters of that district which has actually voted for him. Let us look for a moment at the consequence of assuming a position like that. The same doctrine, if it were carried out still further, would lead to the proposition, that they were the real representatives of th people only who actually voted for them. I do not mean to be understood as saying that anybody has actually advanced this motion directly, but the doctrine, that a representative represents none but the legal voters-those who did vote for him or who might have voted for him-if carrried out, produces the same result. I maintain, Sir, that a representative represents the whole people; and let us look for a moment and see if this be not a correct view of the subject. What sort of gov ernment is this under which we live? What is that government which we are now endeavoring to sustain and whose principle we are endeavoring to embody in our Constitution? I suppose, gentlemen will be surprised to hear me make that inquiry, but it seems to me no more strange than that gentlemen should make the inquiry here, "who are the people?" That question has been asked again and again, and various and inconsistent answers have been given to it? What is the government under which we live? Gentlemen tell us, "it is a free government-it is a democratic government;" but that is not definite enough. We may entertain very different ideas what that is. It is a government in which the governors derive their powers from the assent of the governed; it is a government in which every law that is made receives the assent of every individual who is under its control. No law is binding in a free and democratic government except from the consent of every person upon whom it operates. This may be thought to be theory, but it is sound theory, and if we examine it we shall find, that if carried out, it will prove better in practice than we are aware of. I say that government derives it power from the people, and that the laws derive their powers from the assent of the people; and this brings us to the next point. The inquiry has been made and answered, who are the people? I believe an answer to that question which would be satisfactory to me, and which would in my opinion afford the true basis for our government, would be best obtained by narrowing the sphere of our observations. Let us inquire who are the people of Massachusetts ? I answer that question by saying, every human being within the limits of Massachusetts, and what I comprehend in that expression makes no distinctions of sex or age. What I comprehend in that term I do not qualify by saying, these are physically the people, but not politically.

No, Sir! in every sense, these are the people. They constitute the people; it is that people who are represented here, and

THE SENATE. — MORTON — EARLE.

upon that people should be founded the basis of representation.

We are told that certain classes are not represented—that ladies are not represented; and we have applications here to let women come forward and vote, and to allow them to exercise all the privileges which men possess. A theory more false, one more unfavorable to the rights of women, and more unjust to them could not be concocted. Women not represented! Sir, they are fully represented. Can a man come here and not represent woman? What is representation but a reflection of the opinions of the district which sends its representative here? And where does he get the opinions, sentiments, and feelings which he reflects as the will of his constituents? He imbibes them in his earliest infancy; they increase with his advancing years, and he brings them into the legislative halls with him. What man here that does not bring with him the impressions which his mother stamped upon him before he was capable of reasoning or of knowing? What person does not form his sentiments and views from the social relations of earliest life? I do not mean to be extravagant, but it would not be far from the truth to say that we represent the women and nobody else. [Laughter.] They bave more influence over our acts, more control in forming the ideas which we bring here, and upon which we act when here than we are aware of.

I do not mean to enter into a physiological inquiry as to whether a person derives more of his faculties, physical and moral, from the father or from the mother, but I do mean to assert my belief that more of the moral faculty is implanted by the silent instilling influence of the mother than by that of the father.

And not only so, but the children also are represented here. Do not all of our domestic relations influence us, and combine in making those impressions upon the mind which we carry with us everywhere?

Sir, the characters of man depend upon external circumstances, and, in a very great degree, upon the kind of associates with whom he may be connected through life, and therefore, go where he will, he must, to some extent, represent those associates, and in a special manner will he represent the associates of earlier days, and the wants and needs of that period of life.

The very fact of paternity makes an impression upon the heart which never can be obliterated, and which will go with one through life; and let me say to my friend from Essex, (Mr. Bradford,) that I think any man makes a better legislator for having rocked the cradle. [Laughter.]

I do not desire to detain the Convention, to explain my views at length, but if these views are true and correct, we not only represent those who vote for us, but those who may vote for us-we represent the whole community, children as well as adults, women as well as men, and even idiots and foreigners.

I cannot doubt that my sensible friend from Worcester, (Mr. Earle,) who seems to have a great and honest apprehension lest his pure sentiments may be contaminated with the smut of Romanism, if he were associated with a body of foreigners

Mr. EARLE, (interrupting). I think my friend from Taunton misapprehended the language I employed in relation to the influence of

[May 23d.

Romanism. I did rot intend to make any such remark as the gentleman seems to impute to me.

Mr. MORTON. I dare say I am mistaken. I trust I am; but I understood the gentleman's argument to be based upon the injustice of allowing foreigners to form a portion of the basis for representation.

Mr. EARLE. The gentleman misunderstood me. My remarks were directed against allowing any body to form a portion of the basis of representation, who had not a vote to give in that representation; not because they were foreigners, but because they had not the right of voting. I stated expressly, that I would go as far as any other gentleman, in extending the right of suffrage, and I will here, in this Convention, vote to extend the right of suffrage to any man of the age of twenty-one years, and who has resided in the State for six months, be he foreigner or not.

Mr. MORTON. I suppose I misunderstood the gentleman, and I beg to assure him that nothing was farther from my intention than to cast any reflections upon the views of the gentleman, or upon the arguments which he has used here.

His argument was as he has stated it. Ile referred to the great number of foreigners who were not entitled to vote, and I was saying, when interrupted, that I did not consider them without representation here, for whether the gentleman or myself associate with them, we imbibe sentiments and feelings which we shall carry into legislation with us.

But look at the matter in point of fact. Are the women and children neglected in legislation? Are the insane and foreigners neglected in legislation? I apprehend not. I apprehend that the women exercise an influence over us, and it is right that they should, and that they exercise a much greater influence over our opinions and actions, than they would if, armed in Bloomer, they were permitted to come to the polls with us. Their modesty and virtues at home, and around the fireside, would lose their potent charm over us, if they were permitted to contend at the polls. We know that they have a great and legitimate sphere of duty, and I am the last one to diminish it. Where does history show that woman has enjoyed and exerted the greatest amount of influence, and received the greatest blessings of society? Is it not in England and America? And why is it? It is because their influence acts upon us all, and because they are represented in our conventions and legislatures.

Mr. President, I have thus endeavored to present my views, briefly, indeed, but there is yet one topic to refer to, and that is the provision which requires that the senators shall be residents of the districts for which they shall be chosen. From the views already stated, it is apparent that I consider that as a very important provision of our Constitution. I think the system of absentee representatives, in the British Parliament, is as great and serious an injustice and evil to England, as is that of the absentee landlords of Ireland, to that country.

No man can truly represent his constituency on all occasions, unless he resides amongst them. If he undertakes to do so, it is a factitious representation, and not from the heart.

While, Sir, I mean no improper comparison, I would ask, how would the accomplished lady of Washington Street represent the milk-maid of the Green Mountains, and how lay down the

Monday,]

rules for raising cream and making cheese? And how would the Green Mountain lady regulate the etiquette of the drawing room? I mean no disrespect to either, but I mean to maintain that he only can truly represent a district of people, who lives among them, who joins in their labors and participates in their influence and opinions.

In this point of view I maintain that the Report of the Committee, in principle and detail, is sound, and just, and right, and I hope it will prevail and be incorporated into the Constitution hereafter.

Mr. EARLE, of Worcester. I had not intended to say another word in relation to the question now under discussion before the Convention, nor should I have varied from the resolution I had thus taken, had it not been for the remarks which fell from the gentleman who preceded me, and which drew me out to make a remark or two which, perhaps, might leave an erroneous impression did I not further explain myself.

Much has been said in the course of the debate which has taken place, about the social influence under which representatives act. They have been portrayed to the Convention in very strong colors, and very properly and correctly I grant. All that has been said upon this subject I may agree with, and concede that these social and educational influences have their effect, but what has that to do with the subject before us? What has that to do with the right of representation here? These influences operate upon us whether we will or not, but they have nothing at all to do with the political question of representation in the legislation of the State.

The gentleman from Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) has gone very learnedly into the discussion of the question, exhibiting a considerable extent of research, to show who are the people; and it appears to me that he has arrived at a very proper and a very just conclusion relative to that subject -one which must receive the assent of all the members of this Convention. He makes this distinction in reference to the term "people." The people in their original capacity--the people in the primitive sense of the word-are composed of every human being who resides in the State. But when he comes to the question of political power, he finds that another body of persons constitute the people. He finds that the peoplespeaking in a political sense-are they, and they alone, in whom the political power of the State resides. That was the opinion-that was the ground which I assumed when I addressed the Convention the other day, and that is the principle which I wish to enforce upon your minds now. It is, that "the people," in the political sense of the term, consist of those who have the votes to give. "The people" consist of those who can exercise the political power, and none other. But when you talk about social power and moral power, and all that, it is something aside from the Constitution, aside from the laws. It has nothing to do with the matter of elections and of representation.

Much has been said in relation to the influence which is exerted upon the representatives in the legislature, but the Constitution has never provided in any way for the recognition of that influence as a political power. And after all, what is it? What does it amount to? Does the representative not represent those by whom he is

THE SENATE. - EARLE - FRENCH.

influenced in one way or another? Does the Constitution contemplate that he shall represent only a particular class? If he does represent others than those who have constituted him their representative, why then is not the power in some way given to others by which they can have a voice in his election? It is true, that in one sense he represents those who have no power in his election, inasmuch as it is the duty of every representative of a State to represent the entire people of the State-as well those who do not live in the town or district in which he resides, or from which he was elected, as those who do. Every representative is bound to represent all the inhabitants of the State, because he is required to do what is right and just. He is under obligation to do justly, to do right, to do nothing that is not in accordance with law when considered in its highest sense, which is justice and equality. In this sense of the word, the representative is the representative of the whole people; but when we come to the political question, he is the representative of the people who make him so, and of those only; and however you may argue the case, or however you may mystify the subject, you cannot make him the representative of any body else.

But when you come to that power which sways the representative; to that power which controls him in his actions, if he does that which is unjust, who sustains him in it, or induces him to do the injustice? Who is it that influences him? Is it those who have voted for or against him in his election, and whose votes may be for or against him on another occasion, or is it the people in other portions of the State? Sir, the man who is made a representative under our Constitution and laws, is, in the political sense of the word, the representative only of those who have made him 80. In any other point of view the exclusive power given to a particular portion of the people of the State to vote for or against a representative is arbitrary and unjust. Let us look at the very constitution of this right. A certain portion of the people are selected-clearly not the whole people-and in their hands the political power is placed. They are the people who have the right to vote; and in voting, they are considered, all of them, exactly equal; each has exactly the same power as the other, and hence no man has the right to give but one vote, and every voter is entitled to one vote. But upon the principle which has been argued here, a man living where there are but eight or ten votes to every hundred inhabitants, ought to have a larger amount of political power, and should be entitled to more votes than another, living where there are twenty-five voters to the hundred inhabitants; because upon the original principle with which I set out, all should be equally represented, and they cannot be equally represented, if, in voting in their town meetings, one man represents one hundred persons, and another represents onefourth as many; or if in one case eight voters represent one hundred, and in another case it takes twenty-five voters to represent a like number of inhabitants. Now, if in the primary assembly, the voters are all equal, then by making the population, instead of the voters, the basis of representation, you depart from that principle, because in some portions of the State, you would give a representation twice as great to the same number of voters, as you would in other portions.

When I made my original motion, I stated at the

[May 23d.

time, that I did it rather with the view of testing the sense of the Convention, than with any other purpose. I did not apprehend that the Convention would conform to my views; but having made the motion, and my views having been, in my apprehension, by the subsequent remarks of other gentlemen, misrepresented, I thought it necessary thus briefly to explain them.

One word in relation to the remarks of the gentleman from Taunton, (Mr. Morton,) to which I made a very brief reply at the time. That gentleman seemed to think I had intimated a fear of Romanism, or of the Catholic population of the State; and perhaps others beside him may have entertained similar impressions, from the fact that I alluded to the large foreign population, and from my saying that if you deprived them of the right to vote, it was not right to give to others the power to vote upon that population. I added, however, at the same time, that I had made the allusion, not from any fear of Catholicism or Romanism, but simply to explain the position I had taken; and I supposed I had sufficiently explained myself on that point, when I said I was willing to extend the right of suffrage to them; and when I again express that willingness, I am sure it will be understood that I have no apprehension of any evil influence of Romanism amongst us. The object of my argument was to show that it was not right to give to one set of men a vote based upon a certain other population; that it was unequal and unjust. That was the whole object I had in view. But I went further, and remarked, that in one case to which I alluded, and I had no doubt in a majority of cases, where the representation is based upon a foreign or alien population, the representation is quite as likely to be opposed to the influence of that foreign population, as on the side of it.

With this brief explanation of the subject, I feel willing to leave it, without renewing the motion which was made in Committee of the Whole, seeing, as I do, that a large majority of the Convention are opposed to what I believe to be the true principle of representation.

Mr. FRENCH, of Berkley. I believe that the representative, however much he may be influenced, and probably he is, by his constituents, is a representative of the whole people, and ought not to be controlled by his constituents so much as to neglect what would be the public good. With regard to woman, Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised that at this time of day and under all the circumstances, that there should be presented before this Convention a proposition for striking out the word "male" from the Constitution. It seems to me, that that word does not yet deserve expunging from that instrument. Whilst I would concede to the female portion of community almost everything, I would be the last to surrender the right of voting to them. I should be very sorry to see that class of our population approaching the polls, and mingling in the throng and taking an active part in the noisy and tumultuous proceedings of election day. I would be the last person who would wish to see such a spectacle exhibited to our gaze. In our primary schools and academies, frequently, we find two apartments set apart, one for the males, and the other for the females. Is that a good regulation, or is it best to mingle them indiscriminately in one apartment? If we intend that women shall be permitted the use of the elective