The gentleman has set himself up as the great advocate of the western people, and the vindicator of their high character for integrity and good faith, He had certainly said, or done, nothing to disparage or detract from that character; he claimed only, that they were like all other people in the same situation, acting under views of their own interest, liable at times to improper and unreasonable excitements, and there was nothing in the proposition before them which implied any thing more. It was said to be founded entirely on a distrust of the people, and a supposition that they might at some future time, abuse their own power; it was, however, no more so than every other restraint engrafted upon constitutions and governments. These were all founded on a distrust for human nature; and government in general bad been well and properly said to be but a standing libel on man. He had yesterday stated frankly the general motives which influenced him in relation to this question, and would now repeat them; they were such as still entirely reconciled to his own mind the course which he should pursue.

To the warning which he had heard as to the effect which this provision may have on the adoption of the other amendments which may be laid before the people, it was sufficient to say, that he could not speculate on any contingencies of that sort; "be just, and fear not," was the safest rule for us to pursue; and having done our own duty, according to our best understanding, we should be content to leave the issue to the good sense of the people. The remark, however, had one important bearing, which ought not to be lost sight of, which was, to inculcate the propriety of proposing all our amendments in distinct and separate articles, to be severally accepted or rejected by the people, as they may see fit; by which course, all the apprehended hazard will easily be avoided.

As to the popular excitements, divisions, and turmoils on this subject, with which we were threatened by his colleague to day, and the rising in arms against this provision, which was alluded to yesterday, he could only say, that as he now held nothing from public favour, of which, either by arms or excitements, he could be deprived, so he was sure that there was nothing to which he aspired from that favour, from which he could, by the same weapons be debarred.

The question was then taken on the second division of the section, by ayes and noes, and carried in the affirmative, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Bacon, Baker, Barlow, Breese, Buel, Child, D. Clark, R. Clarke, Clyde, Cramer, Dodge, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Edwards, Fairlie, Fish, Frost, Hallock, Hogeboom, Hunt, Jay, Jones, Kent, King, Lansing, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Paulding, Pitcher, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Richards, Rockwell, Root, Rose, Sage, Sanders, N. Sanford, R. Sandford, Sharpe, Sheldon, I. Smith, Starkweather, Steele, I. Sutherland, Sylvester, Tallmadge, Townsend, Tripp, Van Horne, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Van Vechten, Verbryck, Ward, Wendover, Wheaton, Woods, Woodward, Yates, Young-67.

NOES-Messrs. Beckwith, Briggs, Brinkerhoff, Brooks, Burroughs, Carpenter, Carver, Case, Collins, Day, Fenton, Ferris, Howe, Humphrey, Huntington, Hurd, Knowles, M'Call, Nelson, Park, Pike, President, Price, Pumpelly, Rogers, Rosebrugh, Ross, Russell, Seely, R. Smith, Swift, Taylor, Townley, Van Fleet, A. Webster, Wheeler, N. Williams, Wooster-39.

The blank in the amendment was then so filled as to read" three dollars." MR. Ross's resolution, heretofore offered relative to imprisonment for debt, was read, and the question being put, it was lost.

The resolutions offered by MR. WHEATON, and referred to this committee, were, on motion, postponed until to-morrow.

The report of the select committee on the bill of rights, which had received a similar reference, being next in order,

MR. TOMPKINS moved to postpone until to-morrow the further considerrtion of the subject, to the end that it might be hereafter referred to the committee to be appointed to consolidate, collect, and arrange the various parts of the amended constitution.

After some discussion of the subject, in which Messrs. Tompkins, Sharpe, Tallmadge, Root, and Briggs took part, the motion for postponement prevailed.

The report of the select committee, of which Mr. Radcliff was chairman, was then taken up.

The first subject presented, was contained in the second section relative to the prohibition of the grant of lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets.

MR. RADCLIFF expressed the views of the committee, and set forth at large the evils arising from granting them.

MR. BUEL asked for a division of the section.

COL. YOUNG was desirous to insert a prohibitory provision in the constitution if it could be rendered effectual. But he was apprehensive that tickets from other states, and from the city of Washington, under the authority of the gen eral government, would be poured in upon us, and that we should lose the revenue, without an exemption from the evils that attend them.

MR. EDWARDS stated the decision of the supreme court of the United States in the case relative to the sale of the tickets of the lottery granted by the District of Columbia. He then proceeded to point out the pernicious effects of lotteries, especially in the city of New-York. He averred that it was a legalized system of gambling, and of so pernicious a character as to extend itself into every class of society, from the highest to the lowest, and that its tendency, like all other gambling, was to destroy industry and economy. That it had been frequently animadverted upon by benevolent societies as a fruitful source of pauperism. That it was the very worst mode which could be resorted to for the purpose of raising a revenue, as but a very small portion of the money extracted in various ways from the people, ever found its way into the public treasury; and concluded by expressing his earnest desire that a constitutional prohibition must be adopted for the purpose of putting an effectual stop to them?

MR. WHEATON said he merely rose to state the substance and effect of the decision of the supreme court of the United States, which had been alluded to in the debate. In the famous case of Cohens against the state of Virginia, that court had determined that the tickets in a lottery established by the corporation of the city of Washington, under an act of congress, authorising them to establish lotteries for local purposes, and no provision being contained in the act directing their sale any where out of the district of Columbia, could not be sold in those states where the local laws prohibited the sale of lottery tickets. Still the court were of the opinion, that congress might, in the exercise of its powers as the supreme legislature of the union, establish lotteries for revenue purposes, or any other national object within the sphere of the general powers of the federal government, and compel the sale of the tickets throughout the country, notwithstanding the state laws to the contrary. He did not believe, howev er, that congress would ever resort to a source of revenue so corrupting and demoralizing in its effects, and the power of this state to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets from other states was unquestioned. He therefore hoped that the clause would be adopted as proposed by the select committee.

The section was further supported by Messrs. Sharpe, Radcliff, Jay, and Hogeboom, and opposed by Messrs. Young, Livingston and Tallmadge; when CHANCELLOR KENT moved to amend the section by inserting after the word “state,” the words, “unless the law authorizing the same receives the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each house of the legislature." Lost.

The question was then taken on the first clause in the section by ayes and noes, and carried in the affirmative as follows ·

AYES.-Messrs. Bacon, Briggs, Brooks, Buel, Burroughs, Carpenter, Child, R. Clarke, Dodge, Dubois, Duer, Dyckman, Eastwood, Edwards, Fish, Frost, Hogeboom, Humphrey, Hunter, Huntington, Jay, Lansing, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Munro, Park, Paulding, Pitcher, President, Radcliff, Reeve, Rhinelander, Rogers, Root, Ross, Russell, Sage, N. Sanford, Sharp, R. Smith, Starkweather, I. Sutherland, Sylvester, Townsend, Tripp, J. R. Van Rensselaer, S. Van Rensselaer, Verbryck, Ward, Wendover, Wheaton, Wooster-53. NOES.-Messrs. Baker, Barlow, Breese, Brinkerhoff, D. Clark, Collins, Day, Fairlie, Ferris, Hallock, Howe,Hunt,Hurd, Jones, Kent, King, Knowles, Lefferts, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, Nelson, Pike, Price, Pumpelly, Richards, Rockwell, Sanders, R. Sandford, Seaman, Seely, Sheldon, I. Smith, Steele, Swift, Tallmadge, Taylor, Van Fleet, Van Horne, Van Vechten, A.

Webster, E.Webster, Wheeler, N. Williams, Woods, Woodward, Yates, Young, -47.

The residue of the section was then carried without a division.

The third section passed--nem. con.

The fourth section was read, and that part thereof which relates to the abolition of the fortieth article of the constitution was carried.

On the substitute therefor,

MR. RADCLIFF explained the views of the committee.

GEN. ROOT observed, that this was a subject with which he was not unacquainted. The Quakers originally were the only persons in contemplation to be entitled to exemption. It was afterwards extended to Shakers, and finally to others. The winter before last, a law was made to exempt them without an equivalent. It was on the eve of a gubernatorial election, and the attempt was made to buy them with a price. They got the price, but never restored the equivalent. The way in which the constitution was got along with, will be well recollected. It was provided by that instrument that if they should not perform militia duty they should pay an equivalent. The question then was, what was an equivalent? It was said that a Quaker's service was of no value if he went into the field he would not fight-and therefore that a Quaker's equivalent was nothing at all? That was the argument, and the election succeeded to admiration. The consequence is, that the state is overrun with Quakers-both wet and dry. Mr. R. wished so to amend the constitution, as to bring them up to the work. He would place them all on the same muster roll. The expression in the report of the committee was so broad as to include such as held it" unlawful to bear arms." A few years ago this would have included a great portion of the state-a great peace-party who held it “unlawful to bear arms" in their country's defence, or to cross the lines to oppose an enemy. He believed the committee did not intend to carry it so far. He therefore moved to strike out all that part of the substitute proposed by the select committee, after the word "service," in the 6th line thereof, and to insert in lieu thereof the following:

"But that all such of the inhabitants of this state, of any religious denomina tion whatever, as from scruples of conscience may be averse to bearing arms, shall be excused therefrom by paying to the state an equivalent in money; and the legislature shall provide by law for the collection of such equivalent, to be esti mated according to the expense in time, money, and equipments of an ordinary able-bodied militiaman."

After a few remarks by Mr. JAY, the question was taken thercon, and carried without a division.

The section as amended was then passed.

On the 5th section, Mr. RADCLIFF explained the views of the committee, when the question was taken on the section as reported, and carried.

GEN. ROOT moved to add to the section as just passed, or as a distinct section, the following:

"The judiciary shall not declare any particular religion, to be the law of the land; nor exclude any witness on account of his religious faith."

The supreme court, as Mr. Root contended, had brought into this state the common law of England, in defiance of what he (Mr. R.) considered to be the constitution of the state. Indictments had been sustained for blasphemyparticularly in the county of Herkimer, and in the county of Washington, as contained in Johnson's Reports. In the latter case it had been declared that Christianity was a part of the law of the land-and this was borrowed from the common law of England. The common law of that country was established during the prevalence of the Roman Catholic religion. It was then that they issued writs de heretico comburendo-and this was the law that had been introduced into this state. If this was correct, punishment for blasphemy should now be inflicted on such as would not acknowledge the supremacy of the mother church, and on those who should ridicule the eating of wafers, or the doctrine of transubstantiation.

With respect to the part of the amendment relative to the exclusion of witnesses, he would observe-that when brought forward they were to be interrogated and catechised as to their articles of faith. If it was not held to be correct, they were excluded. This was calculated to produce falsehood and hypocrisy. Indeed if suffered to prevail, hypocrisy and lies would become the chief qualifications for a witness. And yet in a city, large enough in its population for a state, you have a Jew for a sheriff. As the law now is, he is guilty of blasphemy every time he enters the synagogue. Suppose a Musselman reads the Koran for his edification; he is guilty of blasphemy! He wished for freedom of conscience. Where that existed, true religion would flourish. But where such punishments were inflicted, commiseration would be excited for the accused, and execration for the ministers of the law. If judges undertake to support religion by the arm of the law, it will be brought into abhorrence and contempt.

CHANCELLOR KENT said that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Root) had not stated correctly the decision of the supreme court which he arraigned. The court had never declared or adjudged that christianity was a religion established by law. They had only decided that to revile the author of christianity in a blasphemous manner, and with a malicious intent, was an offence against public morals, and indictable. The case to which the gentleman referred, arose in the county of Washington, in 1811. A person was indicted in that county for having uttered in a wanton manner, and with a malicious disposition, in the presence and hearing of divers people, that Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother a whore. He was found guilty by a jury at the Oyer and Terminer, and the cause was removed into the supreme court, and the question submitted to the court was, whether the uttering of these words, in the manner and with the intent and disposition charged, was not a misdemeanor? He had the honour at that time to be chief justice of that court; and after argument and consideration, the court, consisting besides himself of judges Thompson, Spencer, Van Ness, and Yates, unanimously decided that the indictment was good, and the conviction valid in law.

This is the true state of the case. The court considered those blasphemous words, uttered with such an intent, as a breach of public morals, and an offence against public decency. They were indictable on the same principle as the act of wantonly going naked, or committing impure and indecent acts in the public streets. It was not because christianity was established by law, but because christianity was in fact the religion of this country, the rule of our faith and practice, and the basis of the public morals. Such blasphemy was an outrage upon public decorum, and if sanctioned by our tribunals would shock the moral sense of the country, and degrade our character as a christian people.

The authors of our constitution never meant to extirpate christianity, more than they meant to extirpate public decency. It is in a degree recognized by the statute for the observance of the Lord's Day, and for the mode of administering oaths. The reasons of the judgment are in print, and before the public, and to them he referred. The court never intended to interfere with any reli gious creeds or sects, or with religious discussions. They meant to preserve, so far as it came within their cognizance, the morals of the country, which rested on christianity as the foundation. They meant to apply the principles of common law against blasphemy, which they did not believe the constitution ever meant to abolish. Are we not a christian people? Do not ninety-nine hundredths of our fellow citizens hold the general truths of the Bible to be dear and sacred? To attack them with ribaldry and malice, in the presence of those very believers, must, and ought, to be a serious public offence. It disturbs, and annoys, and offends, and shocks, and corrupts the public taste. The common law, as applied to correct such profanity, is the application of common reason and natural justice to the security of the peace and good order of society. The supreme court is likewise charged by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Root,) with rejecting the testimony of witnesses who had no religious be lief. I do not know to what case the gentleman alludes. The act concerning oaths contained the only test or belief ever required of a witness, which was,

that he believed in the existence of a supreme being, and a future state of rewards and punishments. He was persuaded that the court had never gone further in their inquiries of a witness. He had no knowledge of any case calling for such animadversion. This was all that the courts had done, as far as he knew, to check atheists and blasphemers: and could this Convention possibly think that the gentleman's amendment to the constitution was wanting to give them further protection? We should endanger the security of Kife, liberty, and property, and the comfort and happiness of our families.

MR. TOMPKINS was satisfied that the gentleman from Delaware had misapprehended the decision of the court. They had never undertaken to uphold, by the authority of law, any particular sect; but they had interposed, and rightfully interposed, as the guardians of the public morals, to suppress those outrages on public opinion and public feeling, which would otherwise reduce the community to a state of barbarism, corrupt its purity, and debase the mind. Mr. T. was not on the bench at the time the decision alluded to took place, but he fully accorded in the opinions that were advanced; and he could not hear the calumnies that had gone forth against the judiciary on that subject without regret and reprobation. No man of generous mind--no man who regarded public sentiment, or that delicacy of feeling, which lies at the foundation of moral purity, could defend such an outrage on public morals, or say that the decision was unmerited or unjust. If a man were to go naked in the streets, he might claim his right to do so, by the law of nature; but every man who had a suitable regard to decency or morals, would rejoice in bringing him to punishment.

GEN. ROOT then read the case referred to.

MR. BRIGGS supported the amendment, which was opposed by MR. YOUNG--when the usual hour of adjournment having passed, the committeo rose and reported, and the Convention adjourned.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1821.

Prayer by the Rev. DR. CHESTER.

The President took the chair at the usual hour, and the journals of yester day were read and approved.

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.

The Convention resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the unfi nished business of yesterday-Mr. Van Buren in the chair.

The amendment offered yesterday by Mr. Root was withdrawn, and another offered, omitting part of the first, and altering the phraseology of the other part, to read as follows: "It shall not be declared or adjudged that any particular religion is the law of the land.”

The question was taken thereon without debate, and decided in the affirmative, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Barlow, Briggs, Brinkerhoff, Carpenter, Carver, Case, D. Clark, Collins, Cramer, Day, Dodge, Dubois, Dyckman, Eastwood, Fenton, Ferris, Frost, Hogeboom, Howe, Humphrey, Hunt, Jones, Kent, Lansing, A. Livingston, P. R. Livingston, M'Call, Millikin, Moore, Nelson, Park, Pike, President, Price, Pumpelly, Reeve, Richards, Root, Rose, Rosebrugh, Ross, N. Sanford, Schenck, Seaman, Seely, Sharpe, Sheldon, I. Smith, Steele, Swift, Tallmadge, Taylor, Townley, Tripp, Van Fleet, Van Horne, Verbryck, Ward, A. Webster, E. Webster, Wheeler, Wooster, Yates, Young-62.

NOES-Messrs. Bacon, Beckwith, Breese, Buel, Burroughs, Child, Clyde, Duer, Fish, Hees, Hunter, Huntington, Hurd, Jay, Lefferts, Pitcher, Rhinelander, Rogers, Russell, R. Smith, I. Sutherland, Sylvester, J. R. Van Rensse laer, S. Van Rensselaer, Wendover, Wheeler--26,