This is a test which the judge will have steadily before his eye all the time he sits on the bench, and, sir, will he dare to be partial? Will he dare to become a political brawler? Will he dare to violate sound morals, and the law whose minister he is? Will he neglect his books and bend the energies of his mind to the acquisition of wealth? Will he by sluggishness, indifference or intemperance, delay justice? Finally, sir, will he not be pledged to independence, industry, fidelity and uprightness, in the discharge of his duties, by the strongest motive which the human heart acknowledges-self-interest?

What would you say to a Governor for life, or for "good behaviour," without any adequate and effectual power of removing him. It might be argued that he would go into office by the consent of the people, and if he was a good officer, he ought not to be sacrificed and turned out after a brief service-that he had quit his profession or business, to take the office, aud it would be unjust to take it from him; and above all, that a short term of office would destroy his independence and integrity, by reason of his anxiety for a re-election. But, the gentleman from the city admits the Governor ought not to hold during good behaviour. And why not, except on the principle of responsibility to the people? and can he shew that there is any less reason for holding a multitude of judicial officers to this responsibility, than there is for holding the Governor ?

We have been told by the learned gentleman, that the people have given the name of life office to this good behaviour tenu, as a term of reproach and that laws, as well as dogs, may be injured by a bad name. But, do you find any body raising the cry of "mad dog," against your Governor or Legislature, or any of the offices of the government, who are under a just and healthful responsibility to the people? Why is it that this department alone, in which this tenure obtains, is subject to the reproaches of the people?

Mr. HOPKINSON here rose and explained that he had not said "the people" had used this term as reproach, but that certain persons, who were mis-leading the people had called the judicial tenure by this bad name. He had not spoken of the people.

Mr. WOODWARD resumed. No, the gentleman's remark was that the term had been taken up by the rank and file, and repeated by those who did not understand its signification. And a sorry compliment, this, to the intelligence of any portion of our fellow citizens. Much as I respect the author of this sarcasm, I cannot subscribe to its propriety.

Mr. HOPKINSON again explained. He was still mistaken, he said, by the gentleman. He had spoken of the rank and file of the party, and not of the people. He had distinguished between the party and the people.

Mr. WOODWARD resumed. Is there any portion of the people, who do not belong to some party. I dont know why it should be a term of reproach. The gentleman boasts that he belongs to the federal party, and every body belongs to one party or another.

But to return to the subject: The people, or a party of the people,

distrust it, and do not regard it with the same confidence and affection, that they do the other branches of the government. Of this I have no doubt, and why is it? Simply because it is beyond popular influenceclothed in irresponsibility and presents an exception to the republican principles on which the government is founded.

The people, or that party, are intelligent and observant; not an ignonorant soldiery passing a catch word down the rank and file, without knowing its meaning, but inquisitive, watchful and attentive to the principles of their government, and they understand, perfectly, the grounds of objection to this permanent tenure. Remove it from your Constitution, abolish these odious life offices, and rely on it, the popular confidence will return and embrace the bench, and we shall hear no more of hard names and bad names for the judiciarv.

There is no such distrust and reproach of your Executive. True, the people become excited in elections of Governor, and each party predicts the certain ruin of the State, if the adversary candidate is elected; but when the "hurly burly's done," quiet is restored and discontent, if it exist, is smothered. Parties have had a fair trial of their strength, and all acquiesce in the decision of the majority. No man's confidence in his government is shaken, and though the acts and measures of his excellency are scrutinized and remembered, against a coming day of account, yet all are satisfied with the opportunity they are to have to hold him to a strict account.

As long as the people can hold an officer responsible to them, they feel that the office was established for their benefit, and will cherish and defend it, but if you wish to make them indifferent to a man, and distrustful of his office, give him a Pennsylvania commission during good behaviour. He is at once lifted beyond the sphere of their sympathies and wrapt in cold insensibility to their interests. They discuss not his qualifications or merits; it is in vain they approve or condemn his conduct. They cannot remove him; they can see no time when, by themselves or their representatives, they can question his honesty or his capacity-they look on his official existence with cold indifference, or are compelled to desire his death as their only chance of relief.

In the Convention of Virginia, Governor Giles insisted on this view of the case, and he proposed to give the Legislature the power of removing the judges, as the Parliament of England may do. He contended, that the people never would feel a proper degree of confidence in the judiciary, till it was brought within their reach, and made responsible to

them.

Here Mr. W. read from a speech of Governor Giles, and gave way to a motion by Mr. INGERSOLL that the committee rise, and the President having resumed the chair and the chairman reported;

On motion of Mr. PORTER, the Convention adjourned to meet this afternoon at three o'clock.

MONDAY AFTERNOON, October 30.

FIFTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. M'SHERRY in the chair, on the report of the committee to whom was referred the fifth article of the Constitution.

The question being on the motion of Mr. WooDWARD, to amend the report by striking out all after the words "section second," and inserting in lieu thereof, the report of the minority of the committee.

Mr. WOODWARD resumed his remarks. The gentleman from the city relies on the example of the Federal Constitution; and this morning, I endeavored to shew that there was such a dissimilarity in the duties and objects of the two establishments, that no argument, in favor of the good behaviour tenure here, could be justly drawn from the Constitution of the United States; but, as the gentleman quotes great names, in support of the good behaviour tenure, I will offer him the authority of a man not inferior to the greatest name he has mentioned. I mean Thomas Jefferson. He was out of the country at the adoption of the Constitution of 1787, but after the amendments to it were adopted, he seems to have given it his approbation and cordial support. Long after, however, when he had retired from the excitements of political life, and when experience, observation and reflection had enabled him to form a more correct judgment on our political experiment, he held the following language of the federal judiciary:

"Let the future appointments of Judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both houses. That there should be public functionaries, independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency." Such were the mature and calm opinions of this great man on the establishment of the good behaviour tenure even in the national judiciary; and surely there is less apology for it in our State Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I am about to appeal to higher authority still-to the people of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from the city asserted, that the good behaviour principle had been unquestioned from the year 1790, and that he had never heard it questioned before he came here. If the gentleman had taken the trouble of consulting the record, he would have found that, in a few years after the establishment of this tenure in Pennsylvania, the people began to address the Legislature by petition and memorial for some mode of relief. Such petitions came in from various

behaviour tenure developed its influences to the public view-the current of public opinion continued to flow deeper and stronger into the Legisla. ture, until at length in the session of 1811-12, resolutions were reported, recommending to the people an expression of their opinion on the call of a Convention. These resolutions assert the great fundamental principles to which I have adverted, and specify this good behaviour tenure as one of the violations of these principles which had been productive of much evil, and the occasion of great complaint. There seems to have prevailed in the Legislature a strong doubt whether they had power to recommend the calling of a Convention, or to meddle at all with measures leading to a reform of the Constitution, and it is quite probable that the failure of the resolution to which I have referred, is to be ascribed mainly to this doubt. The vote stood, 43 yeas for, to 45 nays against it-so that it was lost by a majority of two votes only. This was a strong expression of public opinion against some of the features of this Constitution, and particularly against these life offices, and it was given, not by an ignorant party, as the watchword passes along the rank and file of an excited soldiery, but by sober, staid and reflecting men, such as the two venerable republicans who sit just in front of me, (Messrs. McCall and Dickerson,) both of whom were in that Legislature and both voted for a call of a Convention. You, sir, (Mr. M'Sherry,) voted the other way, doubtless from motives equally pure and patriotic. Failing of their object in 1812, the people very soon renewed their suit, as the journals and the petitions shew, and in 1825, the pressure of public opinion had become so great that the Legislature yielded to its force, and passed an act for calling a Convention to amend the Constitution. The error of this law was, that it did not provide for submitting the amended Constitution to a vote of the people, and they had learned from the history of the Convention of 1790, that it was not wise to commit their fundamental law to the revision of any body of men, without retaining the power to affirm or reverse their proceedings. Accordingly, when the vote was taken for calling a Convention under that law, there was a majority against it. Still the sturdy republican yeomanry of Pennsylvania did not despair of reform-they continued to pour in upon the Legislature their complaints against your good behaviour tenure, and other abuses of our present Constitution, by petition, public meetings, and every mode in which popular opinion could display itself, till the law was passed for calling the Convention which we now compose a main object of which measure was, as I firmly believe, to abolish these life offices which have become odious to the people and to which they never will be reconciled. Examine these petitions, read the proceedings of these meetings and you will see the strong, steady and unchanging condemnation of this tenure of office by large masses, whole communities of our fellow citizens. Is it enough to sneer at such authority, as the testimony of grog shop politicians, or of an ignorant and excited mob, led on by designing and unprincipled demagogues? No, sir, it is the voice of the people, which, if you deny or despise it too long, will assume a louder and more fearful tone, against which gentlemen cannot, however, they may desire to, shut their ears.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is another fact in this history to be mentioned. Simon Snyder came in as a reform Governor, and, from him down to the present day, there has not been a Governor elected to fill your

MONDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 30.

FIFTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. M'SHERRY in the chair, on the report of the committee to whom was referred the fifth article of the Constitution.

The question being on the motion of Mr. WoODWARD, to amend the report by striking out all after the words "section second," and inserting in lieu thereof, the report of the minority of the committee.

Mr. WOODWARD resumed his remarks. The gentleman from the city relies on the example of the Federal Constitution; and this morning, I endeavored to shew that there was such a dissimilarity in the duties and objects of the two establishments, that no argument, in favor of the good behaviour tenure here, could be justly drawn from the Constitution of the United States; but, as the gentleman quotes great names, in support of the good behaviour tenure, I will offer him the authority of a man not inferior to the greatest name he has mentioned. I mean Thomas Jefferson. He was out of the country at the adoption of the Constitution of 1787, but after the amendments to it were adopted, he seems to have given it his approbation and cordial support. Long after, however, when he had retired from the excitements of political life, and when experience, observation and reflection had enabled him to form a more correct judg ment on our political experiment, he held the following language of the federal judiciary:

"Let the future appointments of Judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments.

We have erred in this point by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both houses. That there should be public functionaries, independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency.' Such were the mature and calm opinions of this great man on the establishment of the good beha viour tenure even in the national judiciary; and surely there is less apology for it in our State Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I am about to appeal to higher authority still-to the people of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from the city asserted, that the good behaviour principle had been unquestioned from the year 1790, and that he had never heard it questioned before he came here. If the gentleman had taken the trouble of consulting the record, he would have found that, in a few years after the establishment of this tenure in Pennsylvania, the people began to address the Legislature by petition and memorial for some mode of relief. Such petitions came in from various