Mr. DANA moved to strike out the clause that required the same number of members to be present when the motion for reconsideration was sustained as were present on passing the original vote. He thought there should be some regulation on the subject of reconsideration, but this was too strict. He said that if gentlemen would recur to the journal of the convention that framed the constitution of the United States, an assembly composed of members of great experience and intelligence, they would find that in the course of their proceedings, propositions were adopted and rejected, reinstated and again rejected, and that they exercised the right of reconsideration with the greatest freedom. If such men required such an indulgence, we should not be able to dispense with it. He thought the rest of the rule would furnish a sufficient guard against abuse, without a second return of the House to know if as many members were present as there were on passing the measure proposed to be reconsidered.

Mr. SIBLEY of Sutton thought it would be impossible ever to reconsider a motion if this rule prevailed. The House was now very numerous gentlemen would be from inevitable accidents called home, and the members of the House regularly decreasing. It would also be in the power of persons opposed to reconsideration to keep out of the House, and in that way to gain their object. He thought that notice only was necessary, and that the amendment should prevail.

Mr. APTHORP of Boston liked the order as it was reported. He thought the objection arose from not adverting to the nature of a reconsideration, which was a motion to do away what had been already done. It was reasonable that when anything had been done by any number of members, an equal number should be required to do it away.

Mr. SHAW hoped that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Groton, would not prevail, because it would wholly alter the character and operation of the rule. He was desirous of explaining, shortly, the course of reasoning which had induced the committee to recommend the rule, as it was reported. They had not submitted this rule, because they thought it to be absolutely the best and most conformable to sound principles, but because it had long been in operation in the most numerous legislative body in this Commonwealth; therefore they considered it one, with the use and practice of which most of the members of this Convention were from experience familiarly conversant. Had they been required now for the first time, to propose a rule on this subject, they would probably have preferred the substitute, offered by the gentleman from Springfield, when this subject was before the Convention upon a former occasion, limiting the right of moving for the consideration of any vote, to a member who had voted with the majority upon the question proposed to be reconsidered, and which was understood to be conformable to the practice in the House of Representatives of the United States. But considering that some advantages in practice

would be derived from adhering to the rules which have for many years prevailed in this Commonwealth, the committee in the first instance had adopted in terms, that of the House of Representatives of our own State in preference to a new one, not so well known.

But it having appeared from the short debate on the subject, which took place when this subject was before under discussion, that the proposed rule was ambiguous in its terms, that different presiding officers had put different constructions upon it, and that gentlemen of the longest experience in the Legislature differed in their views of its true import, and as the subject had been recommitted for the purpose of further reconsideration and amendment, the committee had now reported the same rule in substance, but expressed in terms which in their apprehension would divest it of all ambiguity and make its import at least clear and intelligible. He proceeded to state that the rule itself was founded on the great and incontrovertible principle that in all deliberative assemblies of persons possessing equal rights, the voice of a majority, solemnly and deliberately expressed, must control that of a minority. If the same number who have carried a measure, or a larger number, is desirous of revising their decision, whilst their acts are yet in their power, in consequence of having received new information or changed their views, they have an unquestionable right so to do; but it has never yet been the practice of the Legislature of this Commonwealth, to permit a smaller number to reverse the acts and votes of a larger. The clause therefore, which the gentleman proposes to strike out, is designed to secure the operation of these principles, to guard against surprise, and to secure to the Convention the means of ascertaining in each particular case, that the body called upon to reconsider, is at least as numerous, as that which has deliberately adopted the measure, or passed the vote in question. Mr. S. said this amendment had been urged, on the ground that the rule as reported, had a tendency to narrow the range of discussion; this, however, he believed was a misrepresentation of the design and operation of the rule. Its tendency was rather to encourage a free discussion of every important question at the most proper time, before a vote was taken. Besides, take the rules together, as they have already been adopted, and ample provision is made for the most full and unlimited discussion of every question, which any gentleman may think proper to bring under the consideration of the Convention. Every important question would first be considered in committee of the whole, when the most liberal discussion would be had and the sense of the whole body fully expressed, and again the measure, whatever it might be, would be deliberately revised in Convention. Should their deliberations result in a resolution proposing alteration in the constitution, such resolution must be read on two several days, at each of which readings, the whole subject would be open to debate; by using the term reconsideration therefore, in its liberal and proper sense, every important question must, in the regular and orderly course of proceeding which the Convention had

prescribed to itself, be solemnly and deliberately reconsidered. Nothing, therefore, could be more groundless than the apprehension that this House would be deprived of the means of considering again every question that any member might think proper to submit.

It had been suggested as one reason, why the rule as it stands would be impracticable, that the ranks of this body would shortly be thinned by the absence of members; he trusted, however, that whatever might be the case in ordinary legislative assemblies, no consideration short of imperious necessity would induce a gentleman to withdraw the aid of his voice and counsel from this convention until the very interesting and important trust confided to them by their constituents had been fully and definitively discharged. Believing that the clause in question was an essential part of the rule, that the rule itself, thus guarded, would promote the orderly course of proceedings, and prevent surprise, he hoped it would not be stricken out.

MR. HOLMES of Rochester thought the argument of the gentleman from Sutton, was irrefutable. He acknowledged that he felt the weight of the observations of the gentleman from Boston, last up, but he thought that the order might be so amended as to meet the views of both gentlemen-by merely requiring that there should be as large a number to vote for reconsideration as voted in the majority on the original question.

Mr. VARNUM observed, that the remarks of the gentleman from Sutton, were conclusive, and he called upon gentlemen to produce a single instance of a rule similar to the one reported, in any legislative assembly. He said it was an absurd rule, and what would be the consequences of it, he asked? Suppose all the members of the Convention to be present, a vote passes by a majority of a single member; we are not assured of the health of the members-we must expect accidents-it is probable that there will be a progressive decrease in the number of members who will attend-if one member is called away, you cannot reconsider, because there will not be as many present as there were when the original question was taken. Many votes pass upon the spur of the occasion-perfection does not belong to men, and it always has been and will be the case, that members may change their minds; but if this rule passes, there will be no remedy. Suppose an endeared friend should die-suppose a man should fall dead in the street-these would surely be reasonable causes for absence. Can the Convention supply vacancies ?-the law makes no provision for this. Suppose a.measure passed which is a favorite with any single member—if he has not honor enough to come into the House, he has it in his power to defeat all reconsideration. The gentleman said the rule was an improper one, and an arbitrary one. He said that if notice were given of a member's intention to move a reconsideration, and this notice lay on the table one day, it was sufficient. That nothing but imperious necessity could justify the absence of any member of that body.

Mr. S. A. WELLES of Boston observed, that this was the most salutary rule which had been reported by the committee. He said it would prevent any measure which had been adopted by a majority, from being reversed by a minority-that its influence would be particularly felt by the members from the country. It may happen that many members may have retired to their homes, feeling secure that what has been transacted in the House, with their approbation, would stand firm; but if this rule is rejected, they will feel no security. The measure may be reversed, before they can return. He apprehended that the gentleman from Dracut was mistaken in respect to the antiquity of this rule; that if he would take the trouble to look over the proceedings of our old house of assembly, he would find a similar regulation, in a letter from the assembly, in 1768, to Lord Hillsborough. He thought this rule would be found to be a wise rule, and one from which no inconvenience would be experienced, and he therefore hoped it would be adopted.

Mr. LELAND of Roxbury said that other instances besides those mentioned by the gentleman who preceded him, might be cited, where similar rules had prevailed. The committee had taken into the article the very principle that prevailed in the house of representatives of this Commonwealth, to confirm which, he read the rule, and affirmed that it required the same number should be present when the vote for reconsideration was taken, as were present on the main question. There was a little ambiguity, which the committee had removed in their report. He thought the rule reasonable. There should be a period when debate should come to an end. He said he would not reurge the reasons of the gentleman from Boston, but thought he was not heard in all parts of the House. He recapitulated the course of proceedings in the House-first, consideration in the committee-second, the same proposition as discussed in the House-members may speak twice as a matter of right, and oftener by obtaining leave-the question is taken on two separate days-on each reading, any member may go over the argument again on the same question. He supported the rule more at large, and opposed striking out.

Mr. WILLARD of Fitchburg was in favor of the amendment of the member from Groton. He said sufficient notice of a motion to reconsider, would always be given to those who were opposed to a reconsideration. The gentleman from Boston, (Mr. S. A. WELLES,) had expressed great solicitude for the country members, lest advantage should be taken of their absence. He was from the country, he said, and for himself he felt no such apprehension.

Mr. MARTIN of Marblehead thought members were making the subject in discussion of more importance than it deserved. He said they had been appointing numerous committees to consider of the expediency of different parts of the constitution. He would suppose that some amendments were adopted-that they were very excellent amendments-still, he said, the votes by which they were adopted, would not be beyond the power of the House, if the rule

reported should be accepted. That some member would only have to move that the rules of the House be dispensed with, and the votes would be open to reconsideration. He said he should vote to strike out.

Mr. MORTON thought that the part comprehended in the motion of the gentleman from Groton, was an objectionable feature in the rule reported by the committee, and he hoped the motion to strike it out would prevail. Every member, he said, had equal rights, and no rule should be adopted which would give one member greater rights and privileges than another. If a member, in proper time, moves for a reconsideration, and takes care to have as many members present as there were when the original vote was passed, he does all than can reasonably be required of him. He stands rectus in curia. He has a right to say, I have made my motion regularly and fairly, and am entitled to have it considered-who, he asked, has power to make any rule to prevent its being considered? If any member should be absent by accident, this rule, he said, would deprive him of all power of remedying, what should appear to him to be an inconsiderate measure. He said there was no precedent to sanction this rule.

Mr. WEBSTER observed, that as there was much opposition to the motion, and as it was not of great importance to act upon it immediately, he would venture to propose to have it laid on the table. Mr. DANA spoke in favor of laying the report on the table. Mr. FOSTER was opposed to laying the report on the table, because, if there was no rule, there could be no reconsideration. He thought that if the rule was not adopted, the other rules could not be printed. He wished that the rule might be settled, and that all the rules might be printed.

Mr. BOND said he differed from his honorable colleague, (Mr. WEBSTER,) and was opposed to the report's being laid on the table. The same difficulties and discussion, he said, would recur when the subject came up again. He thought that the opposition to the rule as reported, arose from mistaking the meaning of the rule, and from supposing, what would not prove to be true, that it would be impossible to obtain a reconsideration of any question under it. He said that the objection, that all the delegates present at a vote, would not be present when the motion to reconsider was agitated, was more specious than solid. The rule, he said, did not require the whole number, that is, the same persons, who voted, to be present at the motion to reconsider, but only as many as voted. The rule of the house of representatives, he apprehended, had been generally construed as this one is expressed. He hoped that the rule as reported, would be adopted.

Mr. SAVAGE of Boston thought that very many members felt great relief upon the motion being made by his colleague, to lay the report on the table. He thought that sufficient provision was made in the other rules to guard against surprise. The only objection to omitting the rule, he thought, was, that when a motion was