tinctions, said Mr. P., between the one and the other. But I can point to a case, and I call upon my friends who were there, and who can say, with me, in the language of the Mantuan Bard, "all of which I saw and part of which I was," to bear testimony to the truth of what I saylook to the volunteers at Camp Mifflin! Napoleon himself never had more efficient or better disciplined troops than were to be found in that camp; and they, with one or two exceptions, were all volunteers. I speak of what I saw and know. I find no fault with others; but I will say that here is proof, if proof were wanted, to convince the most sceptical, that volunteers, when properly officered, are the most subordinate soldiers in the world. They are freemen; and it has been well observed that a freeman's arm could best defend a freeman's home. They went voluntarily to work, with a spirit and a patriotism, the results of which no man could doubt.

But as to conscientious scruples. He confessed that this was a most difficult question. No law could be enacted of which a bad man might not avail himself, and here lay the difficulty and delicacy of the subject. No man more sincerely respected conscientious scruples than he did, and where a man sincerely entertained such scruples, the principles of our Government said that they should be respected. He knew that many men would avail themselves of the exemption who were not entitled to it, and here the great difficulty lay. But it was not possible for a man who did not entertain these scruples, properly to feel and appreciate the motives of the man who did entertain them. For himself, he had no such conscientious scruples. He never had; but the sect, said Mr. P., to which I and my forefathers, and you and your forefathers belonged, had held these conscientious feelings, and they became exiles from the land of their birth, in order that they might enjoy the rights of conscience unmolested. I therefore cannot but feel and respect these scruples in others, although I may differ from them; and whilst I cannot accord in sentiment with them, I will at least give them credit for honesty and sincerity in their faith. I do not think it becomes any member of this body, whatever his own feelings may be, to find fault with the consciences of others. As to the effect which such a provision might have upon the interests of the country, that is a fair subject for discussion; but whether their scruples are right or wrong, is to me a matter of no consequence. If they are sincere in what they believe, they are entitled to respect. How far protection should be extended to them, it is for this body to determine; but that you are bound to extend protection to them, so far as can be done without injury to the body politic, I am free to allow.These, sir, are the principles which have governed me; and I declare myself willing to adopt any measure which can safely be adopted, to protect them in the enjoyment of these rights of conscience. I have examined this subject in all its bearings with some attention, in consequence of the peculiar position in which I stand; and the result of my convictions I gave to the committee of the whole, yesterday. I would not now have added a word, but for the manner in which I have been called upon. I have consulted with a number of gentlemen who feel more interest in this question than I do; and I believe they have agreed, that, if the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia shall prevail, the provision reported by the committee, shall not be insist

you leave the whole subject to the Legislature, and that you do not make exceptions in favor of any peculiar sect. All our citizens will be placed on one footing; no privilege will be granted, and nothing will be held out as a boon to particular classes. I hope, therefore, that the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia may prevail; and I will say in answer to the remarks of the delegate from Lancaster (Mr. Reigart) that, in such event, the report of the committee will not be urged when the Bill of Rights shall be taken up for discussion.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, said he did not suppose that he could add any thing to what had already been said, calculated to have a beneficial effect on the minds of this committee. But he would offer a few remarks, with a view to bring the committee back to a right understanding of that which the society of Friends had asked, and that of which they had complained; so that the committee might not, as had heretofore been the case, run into mistaken ideas as to the real nature of the question before them.

The society of Friends, in the memorial presented here, complained of mistaken views which had been adopted in reference to themselves, by the Convention which framed the existing Constitution. This mistake, which had crept into the second section of the sixth article of the present Constitution, was a mistake of a very serious character, yet doubtless originated in the most pure and good intentions. The section provided that the society of Friends should not be compelled to bear arms, but that they should be compelled to pay an equivalent for personal services.Now the society of Friends complained, in the petition, that that which was no doubt intended to be a relief, and to prevent oppression, had actually become oppressive in its operations. Such was precisely the fact. The Convention which framed the present Constitution, intended to benefit the society by the provision therein inserted; but the practical operation of the provision had been oppressive, and had led to all the difficulties and prejudices, fears and jealousies, which have existed. They had not asked to be made a privileged class, to be exempted from the payment of their proportion of the burthens of the Government. It had been stated that if this precedent was established, they would refuse to contribute towards the expenses of the Government. Let us not fall into a mistake in this respect. If the Friends were right in objecting to bear arms, and they chose to abide the consequences, why not let the consequences fall upon them? Why single them out and say that they shall be the objects of plunder and robbery, as they had been under the existing Constitution? He thought that no man who would examine the memorial, could doubt that the second section of the sixth article of the Constitution, which provided that they who had conscientious scruples against bearing arms, should pay an equivalent for personal service, instead of being, as it was designed to be, a remedy, had proved deeply injurious. And, whilst an idea went abroad from this Convention, that the society of Friends was to be a privileged class, it had a great tendency to work injury to that class. They made no such request; they simply asked that no provisions might be inserted on the subjeet. It might not become him to say much on this subject, particularly at the present time. He had merely risen to urge upon the committee not to mis-conceive the real object which the

tinctions, said Mr. P., between the one and the other. But I can point to a case, and I call upon my friends who were there, and who can say, with me, in the language of the Mantuan Bard, "all of which I saw and part of which I was," to bear testimony to the truth of what I saylook to the volunteers at Camp Mifflin! Napoleon himself never had more efficient or better disciplined troops than were to be found in that camp; and they, with one or two exceptions, were all volunteers. I speak of what I saw and know. I find no fault with others; but I will say that here is proof, if proof were wanted, to convince the most sceptical, that volunteers, when properly officered, are the most subordinate soldiers in the world. They are freemen; and it has been well observed that a freeman's arm could best defend a freeman's home.. They went voluntarily to work, with a spirit and a patriotism, the results of which no man could doubt.

But as to conscientious scruples. He confessed that this was a most difficult question. No law could be enacted of which a bad man might not avail himself, and here lay the difficulty and delicacy of the subject. No man more sincerely respected conscientious scruples than he did, and where a man sincerely entertained such scruples, the principles of our Government said that they should be respected. He knew that many men would avail themselves of the exemption who were not entitled to it, and here the great difficulty lay. But it was not possible for a man who did not entertain these scruples, properly to feel and appreciate the motives of the man who did entertain them. For himself, he had no such conscientious scruples. He never had; but the sect, said Mr. P., to which I and my forefathers, and you and your forefathers belonged, had held these conscientious feelings, and they became exiles from the land of their birth, in order that they might enjoy the rights of conscience unmolested. I therefore cannot but feel and respect these scruples in others, although I may differ from them; and whilst I cannot accord in sentiment with them, I will at least give them credit for honesty and sincerity in their faith. I do not think it becomes any member of this body, whatever his own feelings may be, to find fault with the consciences of others. As to the effect which such a provision might have upon the interests of the country, that is a fair subject for discussion; but whether their scruples are right or wrong, is to me a matter of no consequence. If they are sincere in what they believe, they are entitled to respect. How far protection should be extended to them, it is for this body to determine; but that you are bound to extend protection to them, so far as can be done without injury to the body politic, I am free to allow.These, sir, are the principles which have governed me; and I declare myself willing to adopt any measure which can safely be adopted, to protect them in the enjoyment of these rights of conscience. I have examined this subject in all its bearings with some attention, in consequence of the peculiar position in which I stand; and the result of my convictions I gave to the committee of the whole, yesterday. I would not now have added a word, but for the manner in which I have been called upon. I have consulted with a number of gentlemen who feel more interest in this question than I do; and I believe they have agreed, that, if the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia shall prevail, the provision reported by the committee, shall not be insist

you leave the whole subject to the Legislature, and that you do not make exceptions in favor of any peculiar sect. All our citizens will be placed on one footing; no privilege will be granted, and nothing will be held out as a boon to particular classes. I hope, therefore, that the amendment. of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia may prevail; and I will say in answer to the remarks of the delegate from Lancaster (Mr. Reigart) that, in such event, the report of the committee will not be urged when the Bill of Rights shall be taken up for discussion.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, said he did not suppose that he could add any thing to what had already been said, calculated to have a beneficial effect on the minds of this committee. But he would offer a few remarks, with a view to bring the committee back to a right understanding of that which the society of Friends had asked, and that of which they had complained; so that the committee might not, as had heretofore been the case, run into mistaken ideas as to the real nature of the question before them.

The society of Friends, in the memorial presented here, complained of mistaken views which had been adopted in reference to themselves, by the Convention which framed the existing Constitution. This mistake, which had crept into the second section of the sixth article of the present Constitution, was a mistake of a very serious character, yet doubtless originated in the most pure and good intentions. The section provided that the society of Friends should not be compelled to bear arms, but that they should be compelled to pay an equivalent for personal services.Now the society of Friends complained, in the petition, that that which was no doubt intended to be a relief, and to prevent oppression, had actually become oppressive in its operations. Such was precisely the fact. The Convention which framed the present Constitution, intended to benefit the society by the provision therein inserted; but the practical operation of the provision had been oppressive, and had led to all the difficulties and prejudices, fears and jealousies, which have existed. They had not asked to be made a privileged class, to be exempted from the payment of their proportion of the burthens of the Government. It had been stated that if this precedent was established, they would refuse to contribute towards the expenses of the Government. Let us not fall into a mistake in this respect. If the Friends were right in objecting to bear arms, and they chose to abide the consequences, why not let the consequences fall upon them? Why single them out and say that they shall be the objects of plunder and robbery, as they had been under the existing Constitution? He thought that no man who would examine the memorial, could doubt that the second section of the sixth article of the Constitution, which provided that they who had conscientious scruples against bearing arms, should pay an equivalent for personal service, instead of being, as it was designed to be, a remedy, had proved deeply injurious. And, whilst an idea went abroad from this Convention, that the society of Friends was to be a privileged class, it had a great tendency to work injury to that class. They made no such request; they simply asked that no provisions might be inserted on the subjeet. It might not become him to say much on this subject, particularly at the present time. He had merely risen to urge upon the committee not to mis-conceive the real object which the

now under discussion, it should be kept distinct from all consequences which might follow in relation to the Bill of Rights.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, said he did not rise to enter into an argument, but merely to say that the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter,) had spoken without authority from him, when he stated that the provision reported in the Bill of Rights, was not to be insisted upon. He (Mr. D.) wished now to state, that he was not committed by any such disclaimer. On behalf of his constituents, he felt it essential that some such guard should be thrown around their rights, either in the ninth article, or in some other place; and he did not wish to be considered as giving up these rights.

Mr. PORTER said he regretted he had so misunderstood the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Darlington.) In the interview between them this morning, he (Mr. P.) had considered that the views of that gentleman were such as he (Mr. P.) had stated.

Mr. DARLINGTON said he could only state that he had had no such understanding.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia city, said that he could have wished that this discussion had been deferred until the Bill of Rights came up for consideration, inasmuch as a petition on the subject had been referred to the committee on the Bill of Rights, who had reported a proposition in relation to it. But as there now appeared to be a difficulty between gentlemen of the committee who made the report, one declaring that the provision should be given up in the Bill of Rights, and the other that there was no intention so to give it up, he thought that it would be better that the discussion should proceed at this time, in order that the question might be finally settled.

The amendment now pending, proposed to strike out that clause of the Constitution which related to those having conscientious scruples against bearing arms. It appeared to him that this amendment did not present the matter in such a point of view, as was likely to meet the wishes of this Convention, excepting only a small portion of its members. Most of the members believed that the clause should be altered; some that it should be altogether struck out,-but the latter were few in number. Some preferred that it should stand as it now stood; and a large portion, who desired that it should remain with some alteration, had not yet enjoyed the opportunity of expressing their opinions. If this amendment was agreed to-if the clause was stricken out, it would be difficult to restore it; but all the discussion now had, would be thrown away, and a new discussion must hereafter arise. He trusted, therefore, that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown,) would withdraw his amendment, and thus allow such propositions to be made, as would meet the views of different gentlemen.

His own views he would now briefly express. It seemed to be conceded, in reference to the general question of the militia, that there was a mistake in the existing Constitution, in the insertion of an absolute provision, for arming and disciplining the militia; and he believed it was agreed that that provision should be so altered as to leave a discretionary power somewhere or other. All, he thought, agreed that the clause requiring