until it would come officially and orderly before them, but this was refused; and it is now notorious, that upon the next day after the resolution was introduced, the mob, after rendezvousing at the State House, marched to and entered by force the lodging of some of the members, and carried off two of them (which was all that fell into their hands), unto the assembly room-then become the guard house of the moband after putting them into it kept them there, and when under this restraint they assumed the form of a legislative assembly, and counting upon the imprisoned members as a necessary part of their number, proceeded to complete the resolutions, but with some alteration, for they did not then dare to give so short a day for the election as on the preceding day, and they added an idea to delude the people, as if the proposed plan of government had been transmitted to the house from Congress; but this I have already noticed, and it is now universally known to be true, whilst proceeding on this business the two members who were forced there by the mob were not only under restraint, but one of them prevented from his freedom of going even to the door by one who was both a member of the late Federal Convention and of the assembly, laying forcible hands upon him, and by the mobcry "stop, stop," &c., and during those transactions so far was the discipline of the house from being exerted, that there was not even a call to order by the Speaker.

Thus it appears that the dissenting members only availed themselves of this constitutional negative in a case where the Constitution itself and the confederation were both at stake, as well as the people's right to information in a case wherein they are to judge for themselves and posterity. The magnitude of the case invited, and forcible necessity drove them to appeal to their constituents, who have already given an uncontrovertible decision in favor of our conduct by reelecting all those members who dissented that had not already served four years in the house, except one man who was left out through a mistaken division of votes, occasioned by a recent erection of a county. Thus the people have given the strongest testimony of their approbation which the case admits of.

It is the glory of the American revolution that the respective governments underwent a free and rational discussion, were the fruit of deliberation and choice, and were not dictated by a chieftain, nor hatched in a secret conclave, where the depraved and intriguing generally overreach and circumvent the disinterested and virtuous: they were also generally left open to a regular course of alteration or amendment, according as experience and circumstances dictate the propriety. But who would then have believed that at this early period, within the remembrance, and even when the feelings of the revolution were yet fresh on every sensible patriotic mind, that an attempt should be made in a legislative body to preclude the people who accomplished the revolution, and whose wounds have yet scarcely ceased to bleed, from the means of understanding and judging of the amendments or alterations by which they are to be bound. Future generations will justly censure those who precipitated this business, when the dark designs and ambitious intrigues which have fomented the embarrassments of the Union, and paved the way for the aristocratic attempts of the present day, shall be fully unfolded.

The worst that even an improper exertion of this negative by a minority can do is to postpone the business in question, be it what it will, and so to give further time for advisement.

But what will be the opinion of freemen of the precedent set by the majority of the late house, if a mob may be employed or countenanced in compelling members to attend and act who are necessarily responsible only to the rules of their own house and their constituents. May not the mob by the same rule, if they dislike a business which is likely to be enacted into a law, take out what number of members they please so as to turn the majority to their wishes? or may they not by all the terrors of riot oblige the members to vote as they think fit? But the consequences are too plain and too dreadful to be dwelt upon.

In some other free countries, mobs have had the audacity to interrupt the legislature, and prevent for a time the progress of some business obnoxious to the populace; but it

remained for the legislature of Pennsylvania to suffer, and for the mob of Philadelphia to commit, that kind of outrage which puts an end to constitutional government, and the peace and confidence of society at once: for who can think a deliberative body free in their decisions, which sits in reach of the operations and terrors of such a set of desperadoes?

One of the evils prevalent in the controversies of the present times is, that the supposed merit or demerit of names are urged instead of reason, and detraction instead of argument. For this cause I shall not at present give my real name, but subscribe myself what I really have been,

ONE OF THE DISSENTING ASSEMBLYMEN.

CHAPTER IV.

THE DEBATE IN THE CONVENTION..

The election of delegates to represent Philadelphia in the State Convention to consider the constitution took place at the State House on Tuesday, November 6th. All went quietly during the day. But at midnight a crowd gathered, and a riot occurred before the now famous house of Mr. Alexander Boyd on Sixth street. The occasion of the riot was the presence in the house of the Anti-Federal Junto against whom the voters had been muttering threats all day. What happened was stated to the Assembly a few days later by one of the members insulted.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Saturday, November 10th.

The house met pursuant to adjournment.

The order of the day for electing a state treasurer was called up, but Mr. M'Lean expressing a desire to state a subject of some importance, that order was postponed to give him an opportunity to address the house, which he did in the following manner:

Mr. M'Lean. It is with the greatest diffidence I rise to represent some facts, which in my opinion, respect more the dignity, and honor of this house, than the personal safety and resentments of those who are individually interested. As a member of the legislature, it is my duty to guard and protect its privileges in whatever form they may be attacked; and even Mr. Speaker, when so humble a member as he that now addresses you, has been made the means of offering an insult to the house, the offence, which is but trivial when we consider the man, becomes of great importance when we consider his office. For these reasons therefore, I think myself bound to lay before the house, the circumstances of complaint

to which I have alluded; but to their wisdom I shall implicitly submit the measures which are proper to be pursued upon the occasion. About midnight on Tuesday last, a great concourse of people assembled opposite to the house of Mr. Alexander Boyd, in which myself, several other members of this house, and several members of the supreme executive council lodged, and at that time had retired to our respective chambers. The persons thus assembled made a considerable noise in the streets, and at length assailed Mr. Boyd's house, beating loudly at the door, and breaking the windows, thro' which they threw some very large stones, etc., exclaiming repeatedly, "here the damned rascals live who did all the mischief," and using other words highly reproachful to the members of this house and of the executive council. What were the motives of the rioters for this conduct, I do not know, nor am I solicitous to enquire; but having stated these facts, I am confident every gentleman here is ready to express his disapprobation of the proceedings, so grossly in violation of the law of the land, and the established privilege of this house.

Mr. Findley. Though I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that the fullest credit will be given to the information of the member who has just spoken, and that upon this subject no other evidence is necessary to support his allegation, yet I have been solicitous to put the authenticity of the facts which have been stated beyond all doubt, and therefore beg leave to present two affidavits, one made by Mr. Boyd, whose house has been attacked, and the other by Mr. Baird, a member of the supreme executive council.

The clerk then read the affidavits, which were as follows: "Philadelphia, ss."

On this ninth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, before me Plunket Fleeson, Esquire, being one of the justices of peace, in the city and county of Philadelphia, residing in the said city; cometh Alexander Boyd, of Sixth street, from Delaware river in the said city, Esquire, who being solemnly sworn with uplifted hand, doth depose, testify and say that on the