an article, and could not be deprived of that
right, by an article in the Constitution expressly
forbidding them to exercise such a power. He
said that article in the Constitution, declaring
that that Constitution should be perpetual, would
be of no more binding force on the people of Vir-
ginia, than the concluding words often found in
a treaty of peace, when it was declared that the
articles of the treaty should be a perpetual
league and covenant, between the high contract-
ing parties. And that every man knew, that not-
withstanding this "perpetual league and cove-
nant," the "high contracting parties" were often
at war again in a very short time after such trea-
ties had been signed, without being charged even
with any breach of moral obligations; and why
is this true ?
Because, Mr. President, every community has
an inalienable right to seek its own safety and
happiness,
In these opinions of Mr. Randolph, Mr. THOMAS
said the Convention of Virginia with great unan-
imity concurred. Chief Justice Marshall, Mr.
Madison, Mr. Giles, Watkins Lee, Mr. Mercer,
and numerous other distinguished men being
present. The article authorising the people to
meet in Convention was rejected, notwithstand-
ing which, the people of Virginia by their dele-
gates are now inconvention assembled to change
or abolish their Constitution.
Mr. CHAMBERS inquired of Mr. THOMAS wheth-
er, if by virtue of the supreme power of the peo-
ple, a law, which had been unconstitutionally
passed by the Legislature, had been made valid
by the acquiescence of the people, and their subse-
quent action under it, it might not again occur,
that the Legislature might pass an act, calling a
Convention, and provide therein that these offi-
cers should be eligible to seats there, which by
the acquiescence of the people might also be
rendered valid ?
Mr. THOMAS replied that at a proper time he
would discuss that point. He was ready.
Some desultory conversation followed—after
which,
Mr. JENIFER moved to amend the amendment,
by adding the words "or practising lawyers,"
Mr, BRENT, of Baltimore city, asked the yeas
and Bays, which were ordered, and being taken,
were as follows:
Affirmative.—Messrs. Dent, Lee, Chambers of
Kent, Mitchell, Wells, Kent, Bond, Brent of
Charles, Merrick, Jenifer, Buchanan, Bell, Ridge-
ly, John Dennis, Crisfield, Williams, Hicks,
Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Jacobs, Gaither,
Stephenson, Hardcastle, Fiery, Michael New-
comer, Davis, Weber, and Slicer—29.
Negative.—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Donaldson, Dorsey, Sellman, Weems, Dal-
rymple, Sellers, Welch, Sherwood of Talbot,
Colston, Dashiell, Chambers of Cecil, McCul-
lough, Miller, McLane, Bowie, Sprigg, Spencer,
George, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Thomas,
Shriver, Biser. Sappington, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart or Bal-
timore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Presstman,
Ware, John Newcomer, Kilgour, Anderson,
Hollyday, Ege, Shower, and Cockey—44.

So the amendment to the amendment was re-
jected.
The question then recurred and was taken on
the modified amendment of Mr. BRENT, of Balti-
more city, and resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Sellman, Welch, Ridgely,
Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Chambers of Cecil,
McCullough, Miller, McLane, Bowie, Spencer,
George, Thomas, Shriver, Biser, Sappington,
Stephenson, Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Thawley,
Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city,
Brent of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Fiery,
John Newcomer, Michael Newcomer, Anderson,
Hollyday, Slicer, Ege, Shower, and Cockey—36.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Dent, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell,
Donaldson, Dorsey. Wells, Kent, Weems, Dal-
rymple, Bond, Sellers, Brent of Charles, Mer-
rick, Jenifer, Buchanan, Bell, John Dennis, Cris-
field, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Goldsborough,
Eccleston, Phelps, Sprigg, Dirickson, McMaster,
Hearn, Jacobs, Gaither, McHenry, Davis, Kil-
gour, and Weber—37.
So the amendment was rejected.
And the article was adopted.
The thirty-first article was then read and
adopted as follows:
Art. 31. That a long continuance in the first
executive departments of power or trust, ig
dangerous to liberty; a rotation, therefore, in
those departments is one of the best securities of
permanent freedom.
The thirty-second article was read as follows;
Art. 32. That no person ought to hold at the
same time more than one office (if profit, created
by the Constitution or Laws of this State; nor
ought any person in public trust to receive any
present from any Foreign Prince, or State, or
from the United States, or any of them, without
the approbation of this State,
Mr. PARKE moved to amend by inserting after
the word "that" in the second line, the allow-
ing :
"Except as allowed elsewhere in this Consti-
tution."
The amendment was rejected.
And the article was adopted.
The thirty-third article was read as follows :
Art. 33. That as it is the duty of every man
to worship God in such manner as he thinks
most acceptable to him, all persons are equally
entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore, no person ought by any law to be
molested in his person or estate, on account of
his religious persuasion or profession, or for his
religious practice, unless under color of religion,
any man shall disturb the good order, peace, or
safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of
morality, or injure others in their natural, civil
or religious rights; nor ought any person to be
compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute,
unless on contract to maintain any place of
worship or any ministry.
Mr. RIDGELY moved to amend the said arti-
cle, by inserting after the word "estate," in the
fourth line, the following:
"Or suffer any civil or political incapacity."
Mr. RIDGELY explained his object. A fuller