services or money for the purpose of preventing all necessity for violence and force, I can not, sir, understand how it is a case for tender consciences, nor why both money and services should be forbid by conscience. It is a new case-to me a novelty.

Gentlemen have referred to Penn's Charter, wherein, as in our bill of rights, the freedom of conscience is abundantly guarantied. Every man is permitted to adopt whatever religion and creed he pleases, and to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his conscience, and no man is permitted to molest or make him afraid; but no where in Penn's Charter, in our Constitution or laws, do you find the principle recognized which is now sought to be introduced. Exemption from taxation is the last thing he would ever have expected the Quakers to ask for. Their history informs me, sir, that they have always regarded it as a religious duty to contribute to the support of the Government under which they lived, and that conscience, instead of interposing to shield them from the demands of Government, has bound them to a strict and faithful discharge of all the obligations of good citizens. In Proud's History of Pennsylvania, gentlemen will find the following account of the ideas which this sect used to entertain, if they do not still, of their duties to Government.

"Their great care and strictness, in rendering to Cæsar, according to their manner of expression, that is to the Government, its dues; in the punctual payment of taxes, customs, and discouraging all illicit and clandestine trade; and in being at a word in their dealings:-Insomuch, that, in their particular advices to their brethren they say:-"As the blessed truth we profess, teacheth us to do justly to all men, in all things; even so more especially, in a faithful subjection to the Government, in all godliness and honesty; continuing to render unto the King what is his due, in taxes and customs, payable to him according to law."-"For our ancient test mony hath ever been, and still is against defrauding the King of any of the above mentioned particulars, and against buying goods reasonably suspected to be run,"-"or doing any other thing whatsoever to the injury of the King's revenue, or of the common good, or to the hurt of the fair trader; so, if any person or persons, under our name or profession, shall be known to be guilty of these, or any other such crimes or offences, we do earnestly advise the respective monthly meetings (hereafter explained) to which such offenders belong, that they severely reprimand, and testify against such offender, and their unwarrantable, clandestine and unlawful actions"-we being under great obligations of gratitude, as well as duty, to manifest, that we are as truly conscientious to render to Cæsar, the things that are Cæsar's, as to support any other branch of our christian testimony." And so great was the importance of this affair with them, that an annual enquiry was regularly made through all parts of the British dominions, where they had members of society, whether the purport of these advices were duly put in practice, or not, and to enforce the same."

I have always supposed that these people were to be looked to for good examples of citizenship as well as for all the other virtues, and never before did I hear that conscience had taken alarm at the ordinary and reasonable demands of the kind and paternal Government we enjoy. Why, sir, where is this principle of exemption, if once adopted, to stop? The Legislature of this State may think it necessary in times of profound peace

encourage volunteer corps and to make large preparations against the hour of need and peril. All this will require money, and who shall contribute it? Since these preparations point to war, the Friends cannot conscientiously contribute and they must be exempted, you say. But another and another class of community come forward with the same plea of conscience, and, on the same principle, they too must be exempted from all participation in these arrangements-this peace establishment-and finally it is discovered that the State cannot be armed and put into an attitude of defence at all. What then is to become of her? Why, sir, war would be inevitable. Our feeble condition would attract assaults and that greatest of human calamities would be certainly brought on us by the tender consciences of the Commonwealth, which refused to keep up an ability of defence. True humanity might dictate the preparations I have supposed or more, and they would have the effect to deter hostility, prevent bloodshed and preserve peace. The gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Scott) has shown conclusively how extensively the fact of an organized military force had operated with the enemy during the last war and how salutary such impressions may prove in future. But you lose the benefit of such impressions on the mind of an enemy when you deny to the government the means of making the requisite preperations, and if you excuse those who are conscientiously scrupulous, not the Quakers only, but the Menonists, the Dunkers and perhaps every man of any religious creed, may claim the benefit of the exemption, so that your government will become defenceless and powerless.

Without a formal renunciation of its authority, and without open resistance to its demands, it will be left at the mercy of any foe who may choose to attack it from without, or of any enemy within its bosom, who may desire to rend and overthrow it. Now, sir, I have shown from Proud's History what the opinions of the society of friends are, in respect to public contributions; and I find, in the Constitution of 1776, the principle adopted and recognized under which they seem always to have acted. The 8th section of that Constitution is in these words: " Every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property; and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expense of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto; but no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent or that of his legal representatives; nor can any man, who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be compelled thereto; nor are the people bound by any laws but such as they have, in like manner, assented to for their common good."

Mr. Chairman, this is wholesome doctrine, and these are the principles of Pennsylvania. They pervade all our institutions; and I had hoped they were cherished by all our people. I would respect conscientious scruples against bearing arms, where they are sincerely entertained, and would not ask any man, in peace or war, to take up arms against his con science; but then he should pay a pecuniary equivalent, such as the government might assess. This is all that has ever been demanded; and this seems most reasonable and just. I have looked in vain in our own plans of government and Constitutions, and in the Constitutions of other States, for any such extraordinary immunity as is now asked for a

But we are told we must not undertake to judge of men's conscinces; and it is more than intimated, that to argue against this "demand" of conscience, is to trespass on holy ground. I agree that conscience is a sacred right; but when I am asked to vote for exempting a large class of our most opulent citizens from the contribution to public burdens which other citizens have to make, on the ground that conscience forbids them to contribute, may I not inquire, if it is a case for conscience? If an enlightened conscience ought, or can, interpose a plea in bar in such a case? It seems to me to fall peculiarly within the seope of our duties; and I should feel that our constituents had reason to complain, if we yielded to this mild "demand" without investigating it closely and severely.

I know the proposition is often stated in this form: "It is wrong to take human life. And it is the same thing to pay another for taking it as to take it ourselves ;" and in this way it is supposed the argument is just as strong against paying pecuniary equivalents for military ser vice, as it is against performing the service. Now two things are forgotten by this argument: First, that the pecuniary equivalent is for the general purposes of the government; and, secondly, that all military service, as well as pecuniary equivalents, are designed to assist to preserve peace, and not to promote war. Peace is the state our country desires. War is a calamity, and government must be trusted with the means of averting it. If government finds military preparations to be the most effectual means, where is there room for conscientious scruples against co-operating with government?

There is another view of this matter to be taken. The people who have sent in their petitions here, asking for this exemption, are among our most opulent citizens, and have a large amount of property to be protected by the government. Can they conscientiously ask for protection, when they refuse to furnish means? Protection and allegiance are recip rocal duties; and it seems to me that the law of allegiance binds every 'citizen to a discharge of all his obligations to the government which gives him protection, until he is ready to transfer himself to another asylum. Surely, while a body of men ask and enjoy protection from the government for their persons and property, it would be unwise to give them the power, by an affirmation of conscientious scruples, to absolve themselves from their reciprocal duties to the government.

I have an objection to the amendment, founded on its generality. Nobody but the society of Friends is asking for this exemption; and if it is to be granted, let it be to them specially and alone. The amendment goes to exempt every body who may profess conscientious scruples. Let us not outrun the expectations of the public by offering universal exemption from taxation; but if we are to have a select and privi leged class among us, let us name and specify them in our Constitution, so it may be known who are intended to be benefitted. In the first establishment of a privileged order of men, we ought to be more exact and specific than the amendment is; and if gentlemen insist on pressing it, I hope they will make it so.

On motion of Mr. DARLINGTON, the committee then rose and reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

WEDNESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 25.

Mr. DUNLOP submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That as soon as the present article is passed upon in committee of the whole, that all further proceedings towards amendments of the Constitution shall cease, and that the Convention will proceed to consider, upon second reading, those which have already been acted on in committee of the whole, so that a speedy adjournmeet of this body may be effected.

The resolution having been read,

Mr. DUNLOP moved the second reading, and asked for the yeas and nays on this motion, which were ordered.

The question was then taken on the second reading, and decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Darlington, Dickey, Dillinger, Dunlop, Harris, Long, M'Sherry, Merrill, Pennypacker, Reigart, Royer, Seager, Scott, Serrill, Snively, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Sergeant, President-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Crain Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Donagan, Donnell, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, M'Dowell, Merkel, Montgomery, Myers, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ro gers, Russell, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Smyth, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart Weidman, White, Woodward, Young-85.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. CHAMBERS, in the chair, for the purpose of considering the report of the committee to whom was referred the sixth article of the Constitution.

The question pending, being on the motion of Mr. BELL, to amend the fourteenth section by inserting after the word "law" in the third line, the following, viz:

"Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so, nor shall they be compelled to pay an equivalent therefor, except in times of exigency or war."

Mr. DARLINGTON requested the indulgence of the committee for a very moments, while he only briefly stated such views as had occured to him, in reference to this subject. It seemed to him that there was a disposi tion in the committee to discuss the question of conscientious scruples, in this place. Although he thought that a wider scope for this discussion would be presented when the Bill of Rights should come up for consideration; yet, if it was the sense of the committee that the discussion could

all that could be said on the subject. It was probable that the committee were in some measure, influenced by the fact, that in the old Constitution, a clause of this character was originally reported in the Bill of Rights, and was afterwards transferred to the sixth article. This was done after the Convention had been for some time in session, and the Convention had adjourned until a later period of the year. After the adjournment, and before the Convention met again, the memorial of the society of Friends was sent in, and the prayer of that memorial was acceded to by inserting this provision. It was thought proper to transfer the provison to the place where it now stands. From various conversations which he had with gentlemen, and from observation of the desire exhibited by the committee, it seemed to him to be the pleasure of the committee to settle the question here, and not to bring the provision into the Bill of Rights. He cared not where it found a place, so that the clause was inserted somewhere. The matter seemed to be narrowed down to the single question, whether conscientious scruples against bearing arms do exist in any class of our citizens; and, if so, whether such scruples deserve respect at our hands. Could there be any doubt in the mind of any man, as to the existence of such scruples? Was there any one who could bring himself to the belief that it was merely a fallacy and delusion. Was their any one who had read the history of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as it was to be found in the annals of her legislation, and could come to the conclusion that there existed no such thing as conscientious scruples? Was it not for this that our forefathers fled from a land of persecution, and settled themselves down here? What was almost the first step which they took after their arrival in this country, but recognition of these conscientious scruples? In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn, this principle is recognized in the strongest terms. In the first proceeding of the Legislature of this Province, in 1705-6, we find a special enactment, recognizing and tolerating this express right. By a reference to a law passed long before any other charter of rights but that granted to William Penn, the following enactment would be found.

"Because no people can be truly happy though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their consciences, as to their religious professions and worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of conscience, father of lights and spirits, and the author as well as object of divine knowledge, faith and worship, who only doth enlighten the minds and persuade and convince the understandings of the people; I do hereby grant and declare, that no person or persons, inhabiting on the province or territories, who shall confess and acknowledge an Almighty God, the creator, upholder and ruler of the world, and profess him or themselves obliged to live peacably under the civil govern ment, shall be in any case molested or prejudiced in his or their person or estate, because of his or their conscientious persuasion or practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place or ministry, contrary to his or their mind, nor do or suffer any other act or thing, contrary to their religious pursuasion."

Did this provision mean any thing or nothing? Could there be any doubt on the subject in the mind of any man? As to whether it be a part of the religious creed of the society of Friends, to bear their testi