of the minority. He had, therefore, thought it
best to guard against this danger; but, if a majority
of the Convention chose to authorise such
astate of things, be it so. He could submit with
as good grace as other folks. He could not,
however, believe it would add much unction to
their work—the new Constitution. He repeated
his surprise at the opposition, the more particu-
larly, because, when he gave notice of his inten-
tion to move it, he thought there were manifes-
tations of approbation from all parts of the Hall.
Mr. MCLANE said, that the tone rather than
the substance of the remarks of the gentleman
from Kent, (Mr. Chambers.) induced him, (Mr.
McL.,) to trespass a few momenta longer upon
the time of the Convention. He had not stated,
nor insinuated, that the learned gentleman had
found a precedent for his motion in the proceed-
ings of any previous Conventions which had been
held. He, (Mr. McL.,) was sure that the gen-
tleman could not find a case in which a motion
had been successfully made to engraft such a
provision on the rules of proceeding. The gen-
tleman was entitled to the merit of an original
invention; and he, (Mr. McL.,) freely conceded
that merit to him. It was true that a proposi-
tion identical, as he understood, with this had
been introduced into the Massachusetts Conven-
tion, and had been deemed so objectionable on
all sides as to have been voted down without a
division. If, therefore, the gentleman from Kent,
[Mr. Chambers,] had seen the notice of such a
proposition in the Convention of Massachusetts,
and was aware of the fate to which it was con-
signed, he must have had some courage undoubt-
edly to introduce such a proposition here, with
any expectation that it would be successful.
Surely he, (Mr. McL.,) did not mean to say, that
the gentleman obtained his proposition from the
Massachusetts or any other Convention. What
he had said was, that such a rule never had, so
far as his knowledge extended, been adopted in
any legislative body or Convention—unless apre-
cedent might be found in the provincial legisla-
tures—a source to which he thought very few
would be disposed at this day to go for parliamen-
tary rules, or rules relating to the freedom of de-
bate, or of action.
He had referred the gentleman to the Conven-
tion which formed the Constitution of the United
States, where it would be found that the right of
re-consideration and the practice were alike
free.
Some conversation passed between Messrs.
CHAMBERS, of Kent, and MCLANE; after which
Mr. MCLANE resumed his remarks. He meant
to say, that the practice of the Convention which
formed the Constitution of the United States was
uniform, in daily going back, for purposes of
re-consideration, to questions which had been
passed upon.
Mr. BOWIE, [in his seat.] Without limitation
as to time?
Mr. MCLANE. Without limitation as to time,
so far as I know.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. We will have the
authority here, so that we may be certain. |
Mr. MCLANE continued. He thought that if
the gentleman would look to the Madisonian
papers, or to any other authority professing to
give the proceedings of the Convention, he would
find that all these strict parliamentary rules were
dispensed with. He did not mean to say that
there were no written rules. He meant to say,
that no question was disposed of at any one time,
until the Convention came to take the vote on the
close of the whole question.
In relation to the evil spoken of by the gentle-
man from Kent—the right of a minority to con-
trol the majority—he, [Mr. McL.,] did not differ
with that gentleman. But he wished that the
gentleman would carry the principle a little fur-
ther into graver matters, rather than into mere
matters affecting the rules of proceeding in this
body—that he would agree to form a Constitution
upon a basis by which the majority, and not the
minority, should have the control of the Govern-
ment, He, [Mr. McL.,] could not, therefore,
dissent from the view expressed by the gentleman
on this point. He, [Mr. McL.,] meant to say
this: if the gentleman was afraid of the rule as
it now stood, let him go back to Mr. Webster's
rule and provide that a re-consideration shall
only be moved by a member voting in the ma-
jority. What he, [Mr. McL.,] objected to, was
that, after a vote had been taken, no matter how
the opinions of gentlemen might have changed,
no matter how egregiously they might have erred
in the decision they had made, they could not go
back and rectify the error, unless there were the
same number of members here who voted in the
first instance.
Mr. CHAMBERS went into an examination of
the proceedings in the Massachusetts Conven-
tion, insisting on the marked difference between
that case ana the one now before this House;
and that nothing said by Mr. Webster, was in-
tended to oppose the principle now proposed.
The first amendment proposed to the Massachu-
setts rule, was by Mr. Bliss, "that no vote of the
House should be reconsidered, except on motion
of one of the majority." It was objected that
this "would preclude any one who was absent,
or did not vote, from moving a reconsideration."
To this Mr. Webster replied, "it was proper it
should operate in that manner." "No one
should be absent, flattering himself he might re-
medy any mischief by moving a reconsideration."
"He wished every subject to be thoroughly dis-
cussed, but he wished it to be done according to
the rules of legislative bodies." "Every mem-
ber conversant with the proceedings of delibera-
tive assemblies, must have observed the inconve-
nience from the practice of frequently reconsid-
ering votes which have been passed."
The rule was subsequently reported in such a
form as to require as many members of the Convention
to be present when a reconsideration is
voted for, as were present when the original vote
passed. Was that what is now proposed here?
Not at all—nothing like it. What was the ob-
jection there? Hear it: "The House is now
very numerous—gentlemen would be from
inevitable accident called home, and the mem-
bers of the House regularly decreasing. It |
