Legislature, where the impolitic acts of one session might be remedied at the next. On the contrary the proceedings of this Convention would not be open to revision, and were to affect not only the present generation but posterity. It was important therefore that every member should have the power of moving for a reconsideration, and by the rule proposed by himself, the vote on the reconsideration would be as solemn as the original one. The mover

of a reconsideration would be restricted by the rules requiring as many members to be present when he makes his motion, and in favor of it, as there were in the majority when the vote passed. This certainly was fair. All the members would be notified of his intention-what could be fairer? He repeated that he was opposed to one member's having privileges from which others were debarred. Mr. VARNUM said, he felt very happy that the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. WEBSTER) had proposed to substitute the rule practised in Congress. He said it was simple, easily understood and convenient. That he had had many years' experience of its operation, and had never heard any member of Congress make any objection to the rule. That the honor of gentlemen stating that they had voted in the majority had always been relied on, and that no inconvenience had resulted from such reliance.

Mr. QUINCY Corroborated the statements made by the member from Dracut. He said he had himself observed the favorable operation of the rule for eight years in Congress, without having experienced the least inconvenience, though he was the whole of that time in a minority. He expressed his satisfaction at the remarks coming from a gentleman of so long experience as a member and presiding officer in the national legislature. He said it would be one of the most fortunate circumstances attending this Convention, if it should be the means of introducing this rule among us. hoped it would be adopted in our Legislature, where, on important occasions, advantage was too apt to be taken under the rule now in

use.

He

Mr. MORTON rose and stated a case. Suppose there are four hundred and one members present when a vote is passed; two hundred and one voting in the majority-sixty afterwards come in, whose sentiments coincide with the minority-if this rule prevails, what is to be done? How is the question to be opened? He repeated that it was very important in this Convention, that questions should be open to reconsideration.

Mr. FOSTER of Littleton said he felt very diffident of himself, when he saw around him so many men of talents and experience in public affairs, whose judgment must be venerable, and whose judgment he did venerate. He proceeded to say, that this rule was brought forward by gentlemen as the only thing which would answer the purpose intended. He said it might answer very well in Congress, where they have the power, at a future session, to correct any inconsiderate measure of a preceding session. But it was not so with this Convention, which can have no future session.

did not, therefore, follow of course, that a rule suitable for Congress, or for any legislative body, would be applicable to the Convention. He went on to state a case which happened in the Legislature ten or twelve years ago, and which came within his own knowledge. An important measure, he said, was brought forward and advocated by one person only. When the question was taken, it was determined in the negative by the vote of the Speaker. A reconsideration was moved for and advocated by the same person only. The Speaker's vote again determined the question in the negative. The measure was brought forward a third time, and carried by about two thirds, and has been since very well approved of. But this rule will put a stop to all such advantages of revision. He concluded by saying, that the rule was inapplicable to a body like the Convention, where a thing once done, was done forever.

Mr. VARNUM begged pardon of the House for rising so often; the gentleman from Littleton, he said, had mistaken his object altogether. He asked, how can a gentleman in the minority get a reconsideration, unless some member in the majority has changed his opinion?

Question called for.

Mr. MARTIN was opposed to the motion. He approved of the rule that had prevailed in the Legislature of this Commonwealth. He said a thing once done by the Convention, was done forever; all opportunities of reconsideration should therefore be allowed. Some of the members who live in the neighboring towns, might go home. on Saturday, and be prevented by a snow storm from returning on Monday. There were seventy from Essex. And in the meantime a question might be carried, and they would have no remedy. Mr. President, said he, I call this rule a bridle on our tongues. I hope the motion will not prevail. I hope this Convention will not be bound up by the little parliamentary rule that prevails in Congress. It may do very well there. Most of the members of Congress are lawyers, professional men, men of education; but it is not so with all of us. We know what's right, and what's wrong; but it is not to be expected that we can express ourselves so politely; we have not had the education; but we know when the rights of our towns are infringed.

Question, question.

The question was then taken on Mr. WEBSTER'S amendment, and carried in the affirmative-250 to 120.

Mr. BLISS moved that the rules and orders, together with a list of the members and of the committees, be printed for the use of the members. Ordered.

Mr. MARTIN wished to have the rules read. He said he was prevented by the snow storm from being present when they were read before. He said there were a hundred others that had not heard them.

Mr. Martin was answered that the rules were passed, and not then before the House-and he had better get them and read them himself.

Mr. DANA, chairman of the committee on elections and returns, made the following report:

The committee who were directed to receive and examine the returns of the delegates to the Convention from the several towns and districts, and to prepare a roll of the members, have attended to the service assigned them, and ask leave to report:That they have examined the copies of the records of the votes of all the towns and districts which have elected delegates to the Convention:

And they find the records to have been duly made, and fair copies of said records duly attested have been produced by the respective delegates-all of which are in the usual form, except the return from Plymouth, by which, it appears that the townmeeting there, was continued by adjournment to the second day.

The committee therefore submit the following resolution :-That all the delegates from the several towns and districts who have elected members, and against whose election no remonstrance has been offered, have been duly elected.

Mr. BANGS said he was against the acceptance of the report, and moved that the House should adjourn.

Mr. SALSTONSTALL moved that when the House adjourned, it should adjourn until Monday, at 11 o'clock. Carried, 194 to 157. The House then adjourned.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20.

At 11 o'clock the Convention was called to order by the President, and the Journal of Saturday's proceedings was read.

Mr. SULLIVAN of Boston, observing that he was appointed on two committees, and that it would be impossible for him to serve on both, requested to be excused from serving on the committee on the fourth resolution. Granted.

Mr. WELLES of Boston, for the same reason, was excused at his request from serving on the committee on the fifth resolution.

Mr. WEBSTER, for a like reason and at his request, was excused from serving on the committee upon the third resolution.

Mr. SPOONER of Fairhaven was excused from acting on the third resolution, on the suggestion that he was detained from attendance by sickness; and Mr. BARNARD of Nantucket, appointed in his place. Mr. DEARBORN of Roxbury, being also appointed on three committees, was at his request excused from serving on the fourth.

Mr. FREEMAN of Sandwich, for a like reason and request, was excused from serving on the first; Mr. SULLIVAN of Brookline, on the ninth, and Mr. WILLIS of Pittsfield, on the seventh.

Mr. DANA, observing that there was some variation in the copies of the constitution which he had examined, and that the copy furnished to the members by the order of the Convention had some interlineations, with a view of furnishing an authority for determining the correct reading, moved the following order:

Ordered, That the Secretary of this Commonwealth be requested to deliver to the President, the parchment on which the original constitution was engrossed, and which was deposited in the archives of state, to lie on the table for the use of the members.

Mr. SULLIVAN requested, that the mover of the order should so

amend it, as to procure, instead of the original, an attested copy of it. He said the original ought not to leave the Secretary's office, and if it were brought here it is so large that it could not be conveniently used.

Mr. PRINCE of Boston suggested an amendment which was accepted by the mover, as follows:

Ordered, That the Secretary of this Commonwealth be requested to collate and compare the copy of the constitution printed for the use of the members with the original in the Secretary's office, and certify that it is correct, if so; otherwise to minute the variances.

Thus amended, the order passed.

The report of the committee on elections, which was read on Saturday, was then taken up, and, upon a motion that it be accepted,

Mr. VARNUM of Dracut rose and said he was unable to say what the practice of the house of representatives of this State had recently been on occasions of this kind; but he thought there was a great impropriety in accepting this report at this time. Towns may hereafter come forward and remonstrate against the election of members who come here to represent them, but after this report is accepted, it will be too late. The acceptance will confirm the members in their seats. He said it was the custom in the house of representatives of the United States to have the report lie on the table, to give an opportunity for contesting the election of members.

Mr. DANA thought there was much propriety in the observations of the gentleman who spoke last, and that the course pointed out by him was unobjectionable. He wished, however, that the return from Plymouth might be read to the House. The Secretary read the return, which stated, among other things, that the town met on the third Monday of October last, and voted to send five delegates. That after balloting for five, it appeared three only were elected; that the meeting was adjourned to the next day, when Nathaniel M. Davis and Benjamin Bramhall, were duly elected.

Mr. DANA resumed and said the report was predicated upon this return. That, from decisions in our house of representatives, he was of opinion that the members returned were entitled to their seats. The act for calling the Convention says that the towns shall assemble on the third Monday of October, and elect, &c. The constitution ordains that the election of governor shall be on the first Monday of April, and that representatives shall be elected in May, ten days at least before the last Wednesday of that month. There is a distinction between the phraseology of this act and that of the constitution. The constitution requires that the election shall take place on a certain day, or previous to a certain day. This act provides that the town meeting only shall be on a certain day; it does not say that the election shall be on the same day, or any day in particular. And he submitted it to the House, whether the right of adjournment is not implied in the act, since there is no clause expressly taking away the right. He observed that there

was no remonstrance against the election, and no reason offered for holding it invalid, except from what appeared in the return itself. The election of a representative to Congress was held at Plymouth on the same day in the forenoon, and after the ballot for delegates, it appeared that three only, instead of five, were elected. It was about sun-down when the vote was ascertained. The question occurred whether they had a right to adjourn. A motion to that effect was made and carried, and more persons were present the next day at the adjourned meeting than had attended the first day. He said there had been no suggestion of fraud or improper conduct; the only reason for the adjournment was want of time. He was in favor of the members retaining their seats. He should be sorry to have that ancient town of the landing of our forefathers denied a representation on an occasion like the present, when their error, if any had been committed, arose only from want of judgment. That as there would be no future Convention, there could be no danger from the precedent. He concluded by comparing the present case to what takes place in courts of justice, where relief is given to error when not accompanied by fraud.

The

Mr. BANGS of Worcester stated that he was one of the committee who dissented from the opinion which they had expressed in their report, as far as it respected the Plymouth members. He thought they were not duly elected, and not entitled to their seats. words of the act which provided for the Convention, and directed the choice of delegates, were, that the inhabitants should assemble in town meeting on the third Monday in October, and should elect one or more delegates. There could be no doubt that the intention of the Legislature was that the election should be holden on the third Monday of October, and on no other day. If they had not intended to confine the election to a single day, they would have so expressed it. They would have said they should be elected within a prescribed number of days, as was provided by the constitution for the choice of representatives in the General Court. The Legislature meant to make a distinction between this case and that of representatives, otherwise it would have used similar language. They have said the meetings shall be held on the third Monday, and have said nothing about adjourning. It was true the word then was not used in the act, but he contended the meaning was the same as if it had been. He asked what would be the consequence of the contrary construction. If town meetings had the power of adjournment, they might have adjourned to any time previous to the meeting of the Convention-to this very day. Delegates may yet be chosen, and the Convention has now the power to issue precepts to elect delegates, where vacancies exist, or to supply those which shall exist. He knew it might be said that this was an assumption of power by the Legislature. But it was necessary that the power should be exercised, and it was proper that the Legislature should assume it, and that they should establish rules. If they had not the power to fix the time of election, they had no power to establish