friends claimed the right, as a religious body, separate and apart from other denominations, to be exempted from either doing duty, or paying an equivalent therefor. When this question was up before, the delegate from Bedford, (Mr. Russell) offered an amendment to the effect that all persons should be exempted from military duty who chose to exempt themselves. It, however, was voted down. The convention said that they should not have this privilege who asked to be exempted on the score of religion, and of its being irreligious to bear arms. Did not the constitution state that no preference shall be given to any religious sect? "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man ean, of right, be compelled to attend, erect or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights, of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law, to any religious establishments or mode of worship."

All this he subscribed to-he fully admitted. No man on this floor could shew that his right of conscience had been infringed, or he persecuted for exercising it. Nobody objected to any man exercising his right of conscience. It was a glorious right, and he highly valued it. But yet he had been charged with being opposed to it. He entirely denied the truth of the charge. He would say that he esteemed the exercise of the right of conscience in any set of men, but he could not respect them, if they did not obey the laws of their country-if they did not act as patriots, and if they even refused to pay an equivalent for the nonperformance of a duty, which it became all men, professing to be patriots, to discharge. The society of friends admitted that they had paid $300,000, by the sale of property levied upon and sold in order to pay for a non-compliance with the requisitions of the law. Now, he regarded this as nothing less than a rebellion against both divine and human laws. They own their allegiance to the Prince of Peace, and he thought the more of them on account of it. But he could not support any section which went to give them a preference over all other religious sects. He could not give his vote for creating any odious distinctions in society, which, he maintained, would be the case: unless the amendment he had offered should prevail. They were distinctions which no man ever dreamt of in Pennsylvania. It was his decided opinion that, if the other religious classes of the community were to be actuated by the same principles, feelings, and notions as the Quakers, it would not be long before a dissolution of the government would take place. For how could it be supported? How protected?

There was no government on the face of the earth better entitled to the respect and allegiance of the people, than the government of this state, and the general government of the United States. The people ought all to be on an equality of footing. But this had not been the case, as he could show, with respect to the Quakers, if he were to go into a statement of facts as connected with the early history of this country. He could show how these people had been opposed to their own government, and thrown every obstacle in its way. He could shew that they had not been patriots, but on the contrary, enemies of their country, prior to the French Canadian War, and during the revolution of 1774-5-6.

At both periods these people had shown great enmity to their own government. They not only stood out against the demands of the governor for men and money, but they did all they possibly could to induce others to follow their evil and unpatriotic example during the last war.

He did not wish to repeat what he had before said. He desired the clause which he had indicated, stricken out, in order that there might be no contradiction in the language of the constitution. He did not believe that there was a scholar in that hall who was able to reconcile the conflicting, as he conceived it to be, language of the two sections.

There had been some delegates in this convention who had expressed themselves in language which showed their hostility to foreigners, and the descendants of foreigners. And, in the course of their argument, they had intimated as much as that they preferred the blacks to them. He would say to those gentlemen that it would be well if they would take counsel of their reason, instead of giving way to passion. Let them look back to the history of their country, and they would find that foreigners, despised as they might be, were not backward in assisting this country against her enemies. It was the duty of every man owing allegiance to the government, to do his utmost to sustain it. With regard to the memorial of the blacks, the very principle of it proves them to be a distinct people.

He maintained that those delegates elected to this convention, and who advocated this exclusive privilege in regard to the Quakers, would seem to have been elected for the purpose of defeating those measures that were calculated to add to the dignity, and to advance the glory of Penn sylvania, and of the Union at large. He would say most unequivocally that if the society of friends would not give their aid and assistance to the state, when deemed necessary, they had no right to have any representatives on the floor of this convention. Mr. C. proceeded to notice some of the taunts, as he regarded them which had been thrown out against foreigners by certain delegates-when he was reminded by

The CHAIR, (Mr. Porter) that he was digressing from the subject before the convention.

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, moved an adjournment. The motion was lost.

Mr. CUMMIN then resumed his remarks, by reiterating his sentiments in regard to its being the duty of the society of friends to contribute their aid and support to the government under which they live, as well as any other class of citizens.

Several motions were made that the convention adjourn; which were negatived.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, moved the previous question; which was sustained.

And on the question,

Shall the main question be now put?

It was determined in the affirmative.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the report of the committee of the whole, so far as relates to the third section?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DARLINGTON and Mr. EARLE, and are as follow, viz :

YEAS-Messrs, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barndollar, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Indiana, Coates, Cox, Craig, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Payne, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Read, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Seager, Scheetz, Scott, Sellers, Serrill, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Woodward, Young, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tem.-94.

NAY-Mr. Cummin.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

Mr. DORAN, of Philadelphia couuty, moved that the convention do now adjourn;

Which was agreed to.

Adjourned until half past three o'clock this afternoon.

FRIDAY AFTERNOON, FEBRUARY 2, 1838.

NINTH ARTICLE.

The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee to whom was referred the ninth article of the constitution.

The fourth section being under consideration, in the words as follow,

viz:

"SECT. 4. That no person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall on account of his religious sentiments be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."

A motion was made by Mr. READ, of Susquehanna,

To amend the said section by striking therefrom all after the words "section 4," and inserting in lieu thereof the words as follow, viz:

"That no person who acknowledges the being of a God and his own accountability to the Supreme Being, shall on account of his religious sentiments be disqualified to give evidence or to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."

1

Mr. READ, made a brief explanation of his object. He would not (he said) detain the convention but a moment. The amendment which he had

He had

submitted he considered as a necessary and important one. expressed his views on the subject some months ago, at Harrisburg. The persons who desire this amendment, are a large number. There are many of them memorialists of this body.

The respectable society of friends, who by the present constitution are totally excluded from the right of holding office; for, although they believe in future rewards and punishments, they do not believe in a future state of reward and punishment; and the courts have recognized this withdrawn distinction, and on their construction, have excluded the best men of the commonwealth from the privilege of giving testimony on oath. There are some two or three congregations in this city, and seventy or eighty in the state of Pennsylvania, whose rights are not held to be sacred under the present constitution.

He would repeat what he had already said, that the courts who had excluded a portion of the friends and the universalists did not properly construe the law. He would not say more, but would merely call the attention of gentlemen to the facts. The operation of their grievances, and the extent to which they are oppressive on a numerous and worthy portion of our citizens, would be sufficient to induce him to place his amendment on much stronger grounds.

It was not his intention to occupy the time of the convention on repetitions. He would content himself with calling attention to the evils and disqualifications which this construction of the courts has introduced, and this was a good and sufficient reason why the rights of this portion of our society should be placed under more effectual guards. He would not now go any further, but would merely ask for the yeas and nays on his amend

ment.

Mr. DORAN, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend the amendment by striking therefrom all after the word "that," in the first line, and inserting in lieu thereof, the words following, viz: "The civil and political rights, privileges or capacities of any citizen shall in no wise be diminished or enlarged, on account of his religion."

Mr. DORAN proceeded, to give his reasons for offering this amendment. The third section of the ninth article is as follows:

"SECT. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority can in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship."

Now, Mr. President, general as the proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna (Mr. Read) would seem to be on a superficial view of it, I am forced to say it does not meet my approbation. It recognizes and embodies the same objectionable principle which exists in our present constitution. It contains a religious test, and therefore justifies the interference of governments with the rights of conscience. A sincere believer in the great doctrines of christianity, of which the existence of a future state of rewards and punishments is certainly not the least, and with every

wish to see them embraced by the whole human family, I cannot sanction a principle at war with the freedom of conscience, and thus, in my judgment, at war with the true spirit of that holy religion. I cannot, and I hope I never, shall, be the advocate of intolerance, by whomsover it may be attempted.

But, sir, disguise the principle as you may, palliate it by the plea of morality and religion, apply it exclusively to a handful of people and to no others, to the degraded or the ignorant, to the savage or the heathen; confine its operation to the poorest being that crawls on the earth, or to the political, and not to the civil, rights of but a single class in society, and that the smallest possible in numbers, what is it but an outrage upon religion, and the natural and inalienable rights of man? For what right can be more original, or less the proper subject of control and coercion, or one more important in its consequences, than that of wo shiping Almighty God according to the dictates of one's own conscience? He who attempts to restrict it he who seeks by force to impose on his fellow citizens his own religious opinions as the only standard and rule of faith-violates the social compact, injures the cause of christianity, and proves himself unfitted for the enjoyment of civil liberty. The man that would avow such designs, and justify their execution, is a traitor to religion, and an enemy to a free government. Piety and patriotism are too pure to be mixed up with such base alloy; and certainly it is doing but small justice to christianity to say that it requires the aid of the secular power to uphold and support it.

Take up the page of history, that instructive and humiliating record of human infirmity, and there you will find it written in language that cannot be mistaken, that civil and religious liberty have uniformly gone hand in hand, and that, wherever religious liberty existed, if civil liberty was absent, it was not long before the latter came in by means of the former. Trample on the rights of conscience, introduce religious tests, and form a union between church and state, and what becomes of civil liberty? If it be not already overthrown by the adoption of those measures, it soon sinks under the superincumbent weight of the predominant sect, and like the baseless fabric of a vision, leaves not a wreck behind."

66

To the shame of mankind be it spoken, history exhibits melancholy evidence of their weakness and errors, and shows that even our holy religion-a religion which breathes the spirit of mercy and benevolence, teaches the forgiveness of injuries, the exercise of charity, and the return of good for evil, may, by being vested with political power, be so perverted as to become the instrument of persecution and oppression, bloodshed and vengeance for differences of opinion, even in the hands of good men, actuated by honest motives. It proves too, that religion may be blended with politics, and, that when so blended, it enters into the ordinary transactions of life, severing the ties of friendship and kindred; poisoning the spring of individual and national happiness; and becoming the fruitful source of long, bloody, and disastrous wars. It also proves that intolerance begets intolerance, and a persecuted sect, at a convenient opportunity, from fear or revenge, sometimes in turn is changed into a persecutor in the infliction of the same wrongs which it had so loudly condemned when inflicted on itself. For ages it displays an entire ignorance on the part of the world, of that true and just principle of legislation,