necessarily involve a waste of the time of the Convention: the strapping it of all power of action until the Committees shall please to give it something to do the action of different independent Committees on the cane subjects; the re-examination of discussions already gone through wita, and the endless conflict of contradictory opinions, each urged by gentlemen already pledged by their votes in Committee; each and all of which present insuperable oljeti ns to the ad pton of suel, a scheme, while to that which I have had the honour of proposing, none of them apply in whole or in part.

But there exists another objection; more perhips in appearance than in fact, ut one which I confess, weighs heavily with me. A bore majority of the people of Virgina, the majority was very small indeed, have given their decision in favour of the call of this Convention. A most respectable minority, (less by only a few votes then the majority which called us here.) though they ad nit the existence of some defects in the existing Constitution; yet think it Letter to bear the ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of." This minority is every way respectible, as much so in character as numbers. And of what is the majority composed? Of a most mixed and heterogeneous mass, of which I will ventore to affirm, that there are not ten igen who agree in their objections to the Constitution. Ech nen hasan ob ection of his own; all they agree in is, that they are objectors. Well, Sir, when one of the reports of these Committees shall come in, what will be the consequence ? each man will be actuated by his own individual objection, and will of course, strugule for his own opinion. In the mean while, what becomes of the minority of the people? Is there no necessity of looking at all to their opinious? To their prejudices: Yes, Sir, to their false notions, if you please to call thein so? Will a wise statesman ever disregard the opinion of his people? No, Sir, if he did, he would be no lanver wise. Sir, we must have regard, and a respectiul regard, to the opinions of the people of Virgina. What is proposed to you, Sir? Instead of taking up a Con titution to which a portion of that people have been long attached, and considering it see only section, and word by word, that we may cautionsly discover and remedy its de fiets, by one fell swoop you seize at once upon the whole; tear it limbless, and scatter its various fragments to the winds of Heaven: then you set to work to gather these scattered and disse vered limbs, and you attempt to join and dove-tail them together, and piece them up into : ome other form. What will be the public impression frota such a procedure? The public will very naturally conclude, that this Convention has determined to destroy at a blow, every vestige of their Old Constitution. This is the notion that must go abroad; the people will at once believe that you are resolved to explode every thing at a blast, and then to build upon the same, or on a different fundition, a Government, which but few can hope, will do as much for the pule happiness and prosperity as that you destroy has done. Sir, it is due to this affectionste reverence, the people bear to their long-tried form of Government, to deal tenderly with it; it becomes us to take up this beloved offspring of theirs with every feeling of kind rigard, to extol i's virtues and to lay our correcting hand upon its vies ele. Thes, I have ende, vered to show, that not only the convenience of the body, but the good pinion of the perple, whose voice has brought us here, requires the adoption of the heme I have proposed.

There are other considerations besides these which ought to lead you to the course I advocate; which ought to warn you to aim no fell and reckless blow at the existing Constitution. Will you dissect, will you dissever the body said to be gangrenous, before you know where the gangrene is? Will you at once cut into the vitals and separate it limb from limb, under pretence of searching for the unsound part? By whom was this Government formed? By a body which, I will say, united as much wisdom as can be found any where; with as much public virtue as will ever ag le assembled. Is this an instrument to be torn to pieces and distributed fragment by fragment to Committees of thirteen men? Is it not due to such a document, tint we shall contemplate the whole of it at once? That we shall take a view of its parts as sustaining their respective relations to each other and to the whole? Can we judge of it correctly if you judge of it only by parts? Is it wise thus to judge of any thing compounded and complex? Is it not the most ready course to err? A different course is surely due to the character and the virtues of tho e who formed the Constitution. And further, Sir, is nothing due to upwards of fifty years experience? This Constitution has been in operation for fifty-four years: it has 1, rne us safely through peace and through war; through all the excitement of party contest, as well as the calmness of more tranquil times: And i there in this body a single member, or is there a single one of our constituents, who is able to name one practical evil it has brought upon us? Can more be said? A Government, born of wisdom and of virtue, which has been in operation for fifty-four years, and has done no harm. When was there a Government, of which this could be said? Certainly it is due to such a system, to consider it as prima facie good: it is due to it, to give it a close and deliberate examination: it must surely be rash, to cut it at once to pieces; scatter all its parts; and then see if we cannot inake something out of them, that may peradventure do better. It is due to

the feelings of a very large portion of the people of this State, who are attached to the Constitution in all its parts; to the whole and to every part; to refer such a document to all the wisdom which can be commanded for its contemplation; to the collective wisdom of all those whom they have deputed to the task of its revision. But, if the other course shall be pursued, what will be the result? We are to set thirteen men to examine the Legislative part of it; other thirteen to examine the Executive portion of it; other thirteen to examine the Judicial portion of it; and so on; piece by piece, through half a dozen different Committees. It is vain to reply, that all the reports of these various Committees, must come at last to this body; how are they to come? They will come with majorities of each respective Committee, enlisted in favor of their own report, and pledged for its support. It must be so. They stand openly pledged to their constituents and to the world. But, if my proposition shall be adopted, no man will be pledged to any thing, till he has the whole ground before him. Send it to Committees, and the majorities will he pledged; they must be: and they will enter this Hall in solid phalanx, each devoted to the maintenance of the work of his own hands. The consequence I need not predict.

Sir, the question before you, is one of mere form. I considered it as of importance to the time, and to the rightful deliberations of this body; and, therefore, thought something ought to be said upon it. I felt it a duty, to explain the nature of the course I wished to see pursued. I have done: and should consider it unwarrantable, to waste more of that time, which it is my aim and my desire to save.

Mr. MERCER rose in reply. He said, that when he at first rose, he had been well aware of the ingenuity and the ability of the gentleman who had just addressed the House, and was not ignorant of the generous feeling from which what he conceived to be the error of that gentleman proceeded. Yet he believed it only necessary to trace the course of the gentleman's own argument, to show him how widely he had departed from the principles with which he set out. That gentleman, said Mr. Mercer, early told us that the two propositions before the Convention involved no principle. Yet, in support of the substitute he has proposed to the resolutions reported by the Committee, he has gone back and traced the origin of the existing Government, and had delivered an eloquent eulogy upon the Constitution; to the greater part of which, my own heart very fully accords. Sir, was this no appeal to principle? The gentleman tells us, that if the course he advocates shall not be pursued, we shall bring into this House in solid phalanx, pledged and opposing majorities from the Committee rooms. Is there no principle in this? Sir, there are principles involved in any course we may pursue. How can we, who have thought that there are defects, and very serious ones in the Constitution, reconcile it to ourselves to be told that the course we have proposed, tears the Constitution to pieces? The honourable member from Norfolk, has treated the Constitution as if it were an organized sensitive being, and its reference to Committees, must necessarily tear it piece-meal and destroy it altogether. I say, Sir, we purpose to treat the Committee with more respect. What is our proposition? It is first to see whether there be in this body a majority who do disapprove of its present form: and this before we submit it to the promiscuous and accidental motions (if the expression may be pardoned me) of every gentleman who chooses to attack it. We desire first to submit it to Committees of twenty-four members, who, coming from every Senatorial district, may be fairly presumed to represent the judgment of the whole State: and then, after we ascertain that a majority in such Committee of twenty-four concur in recommending an alteration in any of its features, to submit that proposed alteration to the deliberate action of the whole body. Sir, is this to treat the Constitution wi levity? Is this tearing it asunder, and scattering its fragments to the winds of Heaven? Is this inconsistent with the tenderest and the deepest reverence for the work of our forefathers? No, Sir: Nothing like it: just the reverse. On the contrary, it is an expedient calculated to save the time of this assembly, and to promote the harmony as well as the speed of its decisions. Mr. President, even forms necesarily involve principles. If, however, our plan saved no time, the argument of the gentleman over the way would have more weight: but it does save time. How can it be otherwise? Surely it must be obvious that if every proposition before it be discussed, must be approved by a majority of a large Committee, we shall have the fewer propositions before us. It is most palpable that such an arrangement must save our time.

But the gentleman has said, that we cannot analyse the Constitution, so as properly to consider it by separate Committees. The honourable member very truly said, that all Governments are capable of being resolved into Executive, Legislative and Judicial Departments. Admit it. Yet, at another time, he says that these Departments melt like the colours of the rainbow into each other. The gentleman certainly reflects upon the authors of the report before you, when he says that the last Committee which they propose will have nothing to act upon. Sir, are there not many subjects, which standing in precisely the same relation to each one of the Departments, and having nothing in their nature to attach them to one more than the other, will very naturally be thrown

out by each of the other Committees as not being appropriate to the subject of their examination? What is to be done with these? If the report be adopted, they will go to this last Committee, of which the gentleman speaks as if they must be idle. There are, for example, some principles laid down in the Bill of Rights, which pertain alike to all the Departments of Government; take as an instance that clause in the Bill of Rights which treats of rights not surrendered: e propostion there laid down belongs equally to all the divisions of Government; they are all alike bound to respect the residuary rights of the people.

But, Sir, let us leave theory for a moment, and look to the practical difficulties before us. What seems very imperfect in theory, is often found to be attended with no evil consequences, when reduced to practice, and submitted to the test of experience. The gentleman's theory is, that you cannot, in the nature of things, form a plan of Government, by the action of these independent Committees. But the simple remedy to this very formidable difficulty, is to let the Convention act upon the reports as they are received, or in the order in which they are taken up. This will prevent all collision of Committee majorities, and obviate the difficulty arising from contradictory reports, (if they shall prove contradictory.) For example: A report is received from the Committee on the Executive; the Convention takes it up and acts upon it, adopting or rejecting its provisions; that report recommends a certain course respecting the veto of the Executive. By and bye comes the report of the Legisla tive Committee, and recommends a different course respecting the veto; but this recommendation comes too late: the Convention has devided on the subject of the veto, and that subject is at rest; none can stir it anew. Here is an end to the gentleman's difficulty. The Convention loses no time; if any time is lest, it is that of the Committee which discussed a subject already anticipated. Why should the Convention decide upon it again? Has the Convention changed its judgment? It is to be presumed it has not. But granting that it has, all that is to be done, is to suspend the rule quod hoc, and open the subject for revision just as might be done in any other case. Nothing here is either gained or lost.

As to the period at which we must commence our discussions, the honorable gentleman from Norfolk says, that we must necessarily wait till we have the reports of all the Committees, and thus get the whole subject before us.

Sir, is this necessary? I say no: not at all. I heard a figure used the other day, (not here, but elsewhere,) in support of the gentleman's position, which strongly elicited this general remark: that figurative language has place in argument only for the purpose of illustration; and not as itself a source of argument. If we attempt to found arguments upon figures of speech, we shall ever be led astray. The figure used was this: it was said that a sculptor could not possibly know how to carve one limb of a statue, till he first knew the height and proportions of the whole figure he was to produce. This even, if true, would decide nothing in the case before us: for this body could decide, for example, on the question touching the unity of the Executive, without having any reference to the number of members of the House of Delegates, and so of many other branches of the general subject of Government. It is, indeed, true, that there are some points which have a bearing upon the whole system; but this is not true of all the points, nor is it true of many. Sir, were this not so, the House could not decide upon any question whatever; for, obviously, we can go but step by step; one subject only can be taken up at once, and we must and do presume the rest, and act accordingly. We must anticipate, and it will be fair and just to do so, that the coming reports will concur with what the Committees have already done. Give the gentleman all he asks: and suppose we go into Committee of the Whole, and take up the Constitution clause by clause. A member offers an amendment to the first clause; he does so, and can do so, only in anticipation of what is to be done, with the remaining clauses. So that it will come precisely to the same thing, and the difficulty, if it be one, applies as much to the one plan as to the other. I think we shall save much time, by adopting the plan of the Committee.

Besides, there will be this additional advantage. The several propositions will not only be each considered in Committee, but they will be considered in their bearing on all the other portions of that Department of Government to which they appertain, because all that Department will be in the hands of one Committee. Thus, for example, if, in the Legislative Committee, a proposition is reported to reduce the number of members in the House of Delegates, the same Committee will have it in their power to consider the propriety of also reducing the numbers of the Senate. Thus, there will be a harmony in the sub-divisions of each general Department of Govern

ment.

This puts an end to the gentleman's conjecture, that no ten men will agree as to what amendments should be made in the Constitution. But, if that were the fact, it only follows that there is the greater need for the Committees proposed; for there may, according to the gentleman, be no two in the Committee of the Whole, who will fully agree in all their views, and so the debates will be interminable. In Com

mittee of the Whole, there is no restraint as to speaking; each member may speak as often as he pleases; and, for aught, I see, we shall be in session here till mid-winter, if his plan prevails. If the previous question to be taken is, whether the Constitution is to be amended at all, let it be taken. That, after all, is the argument of the geatleman from Norfolk, though it is not his plan. Such a resolution would be in order, and it proves tha we have still a subject to act on here, even if the Committees shall be appointed. So we may also give instructions to the Committees. The whole subject is open to the body. I take it for granted, the delay produced by discussions in the Committees will not be great, and the gentleman can put an end to it whenever he will, the Convention concurring. But, Sir, to prevent the evil he suggests, I shall offer a proposition to enlarge all the Committees so as to make them each consist of twenty-four members. This will prevent the appearance of that solid phalanx which glares before the gentleman's imagination so formidably. If there shall be thirteen to eleven in each Committee, the majority will not be very large; and this is another advantage attending the scheme. The Committees, like the Convention itself, will in this way be prepared to act upon a knowledge of the whole subject before us.

Mr. M. concluded by an apology for having trespassed so long upon the time of the Convention, and then resumed his seat.

The question was then called for on Mr. Tazewell's amendment.

Mr. Randolph demanded that the question be taken by yeas and nays: it was so taken accordingly, and the yeas and nays were reported by the Secretary, as follows: AYES.-Messrs. Jones, Leigh of Chesterfield, Taylor of Chesterfield, Giles, Brodnax, Dromgoole, Alexander, Goode, Marshall, Tyler, Nicholas, Clopton, Mason, Trezvant, Claiborne, Urquhart, Randolph, Leigh of Halifax, Logan, Venable, Madison, Barbour of Orange, Roane, Taylor of Caroline, Garnett, Barbour of Culpeper, Scott, Green, Tazewell, Loyall, Prentis, Townes, Taliaferro and Upshur-34.

NOES-Messrs. Monroe, (President,) Anderson, Coffinan, Williamson, Baldwin, Johnson, MCoy, Moore, Beirne, Smith, Miller, Baxter, Stanard, Mercer, Fitzhugh, Henderson, Cooke, Powell, Opie, Grigrs. Naylor, Donaldson, Boyd, Pendleton, George, M Millan, Campbell of Washington, Byars, Cloyd, Chapman, Oglesby, Duncan, Laidley, Summers, See, Doddridge, Morgan, Campbell of Brooke, Wilson, Micrae, Taylor of Norfolk, Claytor. Mennis, Saunders, Cabell, Martin, Stuart, Pleasants, Gordon, Thompson, Massie, Bates. Joynes and Bayly-54.

So Mr. Tazewell's amendment was rejected by the Convention.

The report of the Committee was then read at the Secretary's table by sections: And the question being on the first resolution by the Committee, as follows: Resolved. That a Committee be appointed to take into consideration the Bill or Declaration of Rights, and to report to this Convention whether, in their opinion, any, and if any, whit amendments are necessary therein.

A desultory conversation arose, in which Messrs. Johnson, Mercer and Doddridge took part, and which resulted in a motion by Mr. Mercer to lay the first resolution for the present upon the table: the motion was agreed to.

The second resolution having been read as follows:

Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to take into consideration the Legislative Department of Government as established by the present Constitution, and to report to this Convention, either a substitute for the same, or such amendments thereto, as in their opinion are necessary, or that no substitute or amendment is necessary,

Mr. Benjamin W. Leigh referring to the notice given by Mr. Mercer, that he should move to enlarge the Committees to twenty-four members each, protested against this being taken for granted as about to pass, and being thus made an argument with the House. He was opposed to such enlargement, and hoped it would not take place. Committees of twenty-four members would scarcely deserve the name; they would be so many debatia ; bodies, with all the forms of debate observed elsewhere, instead of the colloquial discussion appropriate to Committees, and which constituted indeed their chief advantage. Mr. Mercer declined a formal reply till the resolutions should have been gone through with.

The third and fourth resolutions from the Committee were then read and adopted, as follows:

Resolved. That the Executive Department of Government as established by the present Constitution, he referred to a Committee, to enquire and report whether any, and if any, what amendments are necessary.

Resolved, That the Judicial Department of Government as established by the present Constitution, be referred to a Committee, to enquire and report whether any, and if any, what amendments are necessary therein.

The fifth resolutia was then read as follows:

Resored, That all such parts of the present Constitution as are not referred by the foregoing resolution, be referred to a Committee, to enquire and report whether any, and if any, what amendments are necessary therein.

This resolution being amended, so as to add, "the Declaration of Rights," among the subjects transferred to the Committee, it was, thus amended, adopted by the House.

The sixth and last resolution of the Committee was then read as follows:

Resored, Tait no original resolution offered to the Convention proposing any amendment to the Constitution or Declaration of Rights, be discussed on its merits in the House, till it shall have been referred.

Mr. Benjamin W. Leigh called for the reasons in its favor.

Mr. Johnson briefly stated them as consisting in a desire for the maturest discussion of every proposition before it was adopted, and for the prevention of the points referred to the Committees being mooted at the same time in the House.

Mr. Leigh objected to the words of the resolution as going to prevent any member who might propose an amendment in the House, from explaining the nature and intention of such amendments.

Mr. Johnson denied that such consequence would follow, and referred in support of his view of the case, to the usage in the House of Delegates, where it was a standing rule that no proposition could be discussed until it had been seconded, and still a gentleman offering a resolution was held in order to give a succinct explanation of its purport, provided the discussion stopped there.

The question being put on the adoption of the sixth resolution, a division was called for, and the votes being counted by Messrs. Leigh and Johnson, stood as follows: Ayes 48, Noes 32: so the resolution was adopted.

The first resolution was then taken from the table, and rejected; its contents having been superseded.

Mr. Mercer then moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That so much of the twenty-fourth rule of the Convention, as limits the number of a Select Committee to thirteen, be suspended, for the purpose of enlarging the three Committees required by the preceding resolutions, to such extent, as that each Committee shall comprehend one member from every Senatorial District, and composing the Committee required by the fourth resolution of such members as may not be placed on the preceding Committees.

Mr. M. now replied to the objections before stated by Mr. Leigh, and referred to precedents in the Journals of the House of Delegates, to shew that Committees of twenty, of thirty-three, and one of forty-three members, had been appointed on important subjects. No great evil, he thought, arose from the formal mode of discussion, pursued in large Committees, though he acknowledged, that he should prefer the colloquial mode of debate.

A desultory conversation ensued, in which Messrs. Leigh, Stanard, Mercer, Fitzhugh and Doddridge took part, and in which several modifications of the resolution were proposed. Mr. Marshall enquired of Mr. Mercer, if he intended to bring forward, at all, the two resolutions he had read yesterday?

Mr. Mercer replying in the negative,

Mr. Marshall said, that if he had brought them forward, he should have thought, that one Committee of twenty-four was sufficient; as the subject to be referred to it, was geographical in its nature, and had a bearing on members, according to the part of the State where they resided. In such a Committee, twenty-four members might be required, in order to collect the opinions of every part of the State; but this was not equally necessary on questions not geographical in their nature. When the measure proposed, was to affect all the citizens alike, there was not the same reason for a difference of opinion, in different districts. Still, if no objection arose from the proposed number of members in the Committees, Mr. Marshall said, he should have submitted to the arrangement; but there was an objection, and a serious one, which did arise from it: it was the wish, he presumed, of every member, that at least some portion of the business before the Convention, might be entered upon and completed as soon as practicable. But it must be obvious, that if each of the Committees were to consist of twenty-four members, more time would be consumed in preparing their reports, than if the number were smaller. If, for example, the Committees should consist of thirteen members, the reports, though he hoped not less considered, would be considered and reported upon in less time.

Mr. Scott moved to amend the resolution, by striking out the word "three," so as to read, "the first of the Committees," instead of "the first three of the Committees."

Mr. Mercer observed in reply to Judge Marshall, that there was not a part of the Constitution, in which all parts of the State were not deeply interested. How could the Convention know the opinions of the people, for instance, respecting the Executive Department of Government, but by consulting the people? and how could it consult them, but through their representatives? So respecting the Judiciary; he could assure the honorable and venerable gentleman that that was a question of a local character; there did exist on that subject, evils of very great magnitude; but