Mr. MERRICK said he thought this was the
place to discuss it.
Mr. RIDGELY said that when he had offered
the amendment which had given rise to this de-
bate, he intended it to have a general, not a spe-
cial application. He supposed that it was con-
ceded on all hands, that the judicial officers should
be kept distinct from all other officers. He had
not anticipated the opposition which had risen up
to his proposition. It had been doubted by some,
whether a judge ought to have a seat in this Con-
vention . His object was to prevent a judge from
holding any political trust or employment; that it
may be distinctly understood hereafter, that no
person sitting as a judge, should be a member of
any political body. He thought his object could
not be misunderstood.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he had no objection.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. RIDGELY, and it was rejected.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city.
Mr. MCMASTER moved that the amendment be
laid on the table.
The PRESIDENT said, that that motion, if it
should be insisted on, and should prevail, would
carry with it the whole report of the committee
on the bill of rights.
Mr. MCMASTER thereupon withdrew his mo-
tion.
Mr. BRENT asked the yeas and nays on his
amendment.
Mr. SPENCER made a few observations to the
effect, that he held the people to be supreme. If
a majority of the Convention intend to say the
people shall not change the Constitution, except
in the mode here painted out, then this amend-
ment is proper to carry out that intention; but if
the Convention should declare that the people
have the right to change the Constitution at their
will, and in their own way, that would settle the
matter. He gave notice that he intended to move
are consideration of the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey,) and
he would do it. With such a modification, he would
feel himself compelled to vote against the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Baltimore, (Mr.
Presstman.) But, he repeated, if the doctrine is
to be established that the people are to be bound
to act in the mode prescribed by this Constitution,
then this proposition is right; if not, it ought to
be rejected.
Mr. HICKS moved an amendment to the amend-
ment, which was modified once or twice, and
finally assumed the form hereafter given.
[The Reporter cannot make the proceedings
on the amendment intelligible, as he has no
means of tracing the proposition. It appears up-
on the journal only in the form which it finally
assumed. The same difficulty exists in regard
to the other propositions.]
The question) then came back to the modified
amendment of Mr. BRENT.
Mr. JENIFER suggested to Mr. BRENT, to in-
clude all offices, and expressed his surprise at the
speech which the gentleman had made to-day—
seeing that that gentleman had gone as far as the.
furthest in giving the election of judges, and all

other offices, to the people; and yet now the gen-
tleman proposed to forbid the people exercising
the very power which he was so anxious to give
to them. It seemed like "keeping the word of
promise to the ear, and breaking it to the hope."
Mr. BRENT replied to the suggestion, as to
making the amendment general, that the article
which he proposed to amend related to no other
subject matter than that of judges.
Mr. JENIFER indicated his intention to go
against the proposition.
Mr. THOMAS said, he took no pleasure in dis-
cussions of this character, and would not partici-
pate if he was at liberty to avoid voting. But,
as he must vote, and intended to vote against the
proposition of the gentleman from Baltimore city,
he felt constrained to say a few words, that his
reasons for that vote might not be misunder-
stood. By a silent vote against that amendment,
he might leave room to have it supposed, that he
did not fee] the force of what had been said, as
to the inconvenience parties to appeals, before the
Supreme Court of the State, might experience
by the absence of two of the judges of that Court,
in attendance as members of this Convention.
He would say that there was much force in what
had been said on that subject. But in saying
this, he desired to disclaim all wish to make the
attendance here, of two gentlemen who were
distinguished by a long career of useful public
service, in any degree unpleasant. They were
here in pursuance of the provisions of the law,
under which this Convention had assembled.
That law authorized the judges to take seats as
members of this Convention. The law had been
submilted to the people of the whole state for
their sanction. A large majority of the people
had accepted the law, and we were all here in
obedience to its privileges and requirements. In-
deed but for the requirements of that law, Fred-
erick county would never have consented to meet
her sister counties in a Convention such as this,
where the people are not fairly represented. The
Legislature of the State had proposed to the peo-
ple to meet in Convention, with representatives
apportioned as they are under this law. The peo-
ple had no alternatives, but submission to the
Constitution as it is, or, to meet in Convention
on the conditions that the Legislature had im-
posed. The majority made choice of the last
alternative, and we were all here under the law,
the judges being here with as much title as other
members.
Now the gentleman from Baltimore proposes
to insert in the Constitution we are to frame, a
provision denying to Judges in this State here-
after, a right to take seats in any future Conven-
tion, that may be assembled to change or abolish
this Constitution. For this, Mr. THOMAS said he
could not vote. We had no power to come after
us in this respect. Such an article in the Con-
stitution could have no effect. The generations
of men who are to succeed us as residents of this
State, will have aright to meet in Convention,
and disregard such arestriction. If we were to
declare in this Constitution, that the people of
Maryland should not, hereafter, meet in Convention
to abolish or change that instrument, such a