You find the different States accordingly giving
authority to make new governments or to alter the
existing one.
Any other doctrine consigns to us anarchy. He
then went into a detail of the early incidents of
the French Revolution of 1793, and read a num-
ber of passages from the speeches of the Jaco-
bins to show how the worst men will act in the
name of the "dear people."
At first all France was the "people." It was
soon notorious that Paris was France—presently
the constituent assembly was Paris—then the Ja-
cobin clubs were the assembly, then Robespierre
and the bloody guillotine were the fit represen-
tatives of the clubs—to these succeeded a first
Consul—a King and an Emperor, lie did not
mean to say, the succession of events would be
as rapid here. Our people had too long been
acquainted with the principles of civil liberty.
He had regretted to hear the gentleman from
Cecil say, our fathers knew nothing of these prin-
ciples at the revolution. He believed that as pure
a representative democracy—republicanism—
was to be found in the towns of New England,
before the revolution, as now. Those who framed
our Constitutions had at least as just conceptions
of civil liberty as we have. He read from the
Constitution of Virginia, of 1830, of which all
the great men of their State were said to be
members, the express declaration, that "the dec-
laration of rights made on the 12th of June, 1776,
as the basis and foundation of government" "re-
quired no amendment," and should be perfixed
to the new Constitution. And here, and every
where, these principles were understood; so that
as "John Randolph" had said, "we had only to
throw King George overboard" and every thing
was right. But if our ruin would not be as rapid
it might be as certain. The population of Balti-
more would be larger in respect to the other
parts of the State, than Paris was to France.
Men in all ages and counties have the same in-
firmities and unfortunately the same class of art-
ful, designing demagogues to stimulate them.
The final catastrophe was inevitable, if once we
were set afloat on this wild and perilous ocean
of popular prejudice, passion and excitement.
Edmund Burke had beautifully said, "Justice
required protection from power." If now
amongst us, might he not add—our weakness re-
quires protection against oppression; our modera-
tion against extravagant ultraism; our minorities,
protection against majorities; and the rational
civil liberty, we now all love, will e'er long re-
quire protection against anarchy ? It will then
be too late.
Mr. SPENCER said, his friend from the city of
Baltimore, (Mr. Presstman,) had offered to
amend the first article of the declaration of rights
by adding the following:
"And they, (the people.) have atall times the
unalienable right, to alter, remodel, or abolish
their form of government, in such manner as they
think expedient."
The question presented is, one of great in-
terest and magnitude. For thirty years or more

it has agitated this State, and it is high time to
be put at rest. It must be settled. A very large
portion of the people have contended for the
right, whilst another portion have resisted it. At
one time so intense was the excitement, growing
out of the question, and the bold resistance which
was made to all reform, that we were seriously
threatened with intestine war.
What objection is there to engrafting such a
principle in our declaration of rights? Is there any
thing wrong in if? The honorable gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) tells us, he is the friend of
the people, but be objects to it, because he is fear-
ful of popular excitement—is apprehensive of the
mob. He has pictured to us the character of
Robespierre, his professed attachment to the peo-
ple, and his profligate hypocrisy. Was this done
for the purpose of casting a satire on those in
this House, who contend for this unalienable and
sacred right ? If so, the shaft was harmless.
There are those to be found in every community
who cover their vices by the cloak of hypocrisy—
such as profess to be the true friends of the
people, and yet embrace every opportunity to
stab and to deprive them of their rights. He
tells us, too, that in the excitement throughout
France, Paris controled everything—that Paris
was France and as Robespierre managed Paris,
therefore, he was France. And then the gentle-
man tells us, that as Paris stood to France, so
does Baltimore to Maryland. Does be mean to
caution us against Baltimore influence and in-
subordination, and to tell us that in her city, some
Robespierre will spring up, who, holding in his
hands her destiny, will thereby control the State,
and in fact, be the State. Such apprehensions had
no terror in them for him. He had no such fear.
None which would drive him from a just and
correct position. Nor did it concern him, that
an effort should be made, to drive the friends of
popular rights in this House, from their true
ground, by pictures of such a character. The
true and sincere advocate of the rights of the
people, was always known and appreciated. It
it true, the purest are sometimes traduced by the
friends of power. Even a Henry was branded as
a traitor, and would have been hung, had the Re-
volution proved unsuccessful.
In advocating the doctrine, which is now be-
fore us, we stand on no isolated ground. It was
the doctrine of our gallant forefathers, and has
been incorporated into the Constitution of a large
majority of the States of this Union. And in
many of them, in the very language submitted by
the gentleman from Baltimore. Eighteen of the
States have recognized it.
The 1st article of the declaration of rights of
Tennessee, concludes as follows: "They, (mean-
ing the people,) have at all times an unalienable
and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish
their form of government, in such manner as they
may think proper."
And for the same purpose he referred to the
following authorities:
1st. Maine—declaration of rights, 2d sec.
2rd. Massachusetts—preamble (to Constitu-
tion.