Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved to amend the report of the comtee, so as to read as follows:

"In elections by the citizens, any freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State one year next before the election, and within two years next before such election, paid a State, county, road, or poor tax, which shall have been legally assessed, shall enjoy the rights of an elector; provided that freemen, between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-two years, who shall have resided as aforesaid, if citizens of the United States, shall be entitled to vote, although they shall not have paid taxes".

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, asked if that question was not decided yesterday.

The CHAIR: It was the same in effect, but different in terms.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said it would not be in order to move an amendment to the amendment, but he would suggest to the gentleman, that he had left out the most important tax-the school tax. He hoped the gentleman would modify his amendment. In some districts the school tex was four times as much as the other taxes. He would much like to see this tax introduced into the proposition.

Mr. PORTER said the objection was, that this tax was not general over the State.

Mr. BROWN offered to modify his amendment, to read "with the payment of a State and county tax".

The CHAIR said it was not in order. The question was upon the amendment to the amendment, offered by the gentleman from Northampton.

Mr. BROWN then withdrew his amendment, and moved to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, by striking out the words "one year", and inserting the words "six months".

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, was sorry that the gentleman from the county should have withdrawn his amendment, for he (Mr. S.) certainly prefered it very much to the one offered by the gentleman from Northampton, because it would operate fairly, and with perfect equality, throughout the State, for doubtless there would always be a tax laid annually in every county, as there had hitherto been. For that reason, there could be no frauds practised, as there might be in high party times, if the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton were adopted, because the assessors had it in their power to use, indirectly, much political influence, prior to an election, by the creation of roads. He infinitely prefered the proposition originally offered by the gentleman from Chester, with six months residence, and the payment of a simple county or State tax, to the ten thousand different tax qualifications proposed in the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton. The gentleman from Chester had said that he would offer his amendment, in the event of the present amendment being negatived. If he should, then he (Mr. S.) would vote for it.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered,

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend the amendment, by stri king out the words "one year", and inserting "six months", and also

Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia, asked for a division of the question, making the amendment end without the words "six months".

The CHAIR decided that as this was an amendment to an amendment, it could not be divided.

Mr. BROWN said that the amendment which he had offered, did not entirely meet his own views, but he was induced to offer it merely to get the question fairly tested. He believed that it would be found to meet the views of a large number of the members of the Convention, though it might not meet them all.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, would vote not only against the amendment, but also the amendment to the amendment. So long as he held a seat on this floor, he would vote against any tax qualification. That principle he never would yield. Now, if the gentleman from the county of Philadel phia (Mr. BROWN) yielded it;

Mr. BROWN had not said that he would vote for the tax qualification ultimately. He left himself free to vote as he might think proper.

Mr. DICKEY said that he was glad to hear the explanation of the gentleman. But he was sorry that he moved to strike out the words "road or poor", and desired to insert "county and State tax", for that was abandoning his original position. He (Mr. D.) would repeat, that he should adhere to an uncompromising opposition to any tax qualification, and if those friends of reform who were opposed to any other qualification than a local residence would stand fast, they could carry it. every man could give his vote.

Then,

Mr. BROWN said he had abandoned his position; but he wished it to be understood, that whatever were his own views, he should go for the greatest reform that he could get, and not prevent all reform by adhering to his own views. He would vote against the tax; but if it could not be got clear of, he would then take off all the restrictions he could. This was the wish of his constituents, and it was their wish he was here to respect, and not his own opinion-their vote, not his own.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, demanded the previous question, but the call was not seconded.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, remarked that the gentleman from Beaver (Mr. DICKEY) would not give up his one year's residence; and he (Mr. EARLE) was inclined to vote for six months with a tax, as it would cut off the frauds of those living in the district. He prefered this to one year's residence, without tax, because the latter would exclude the greatest number of votes.

Mr. M'CAHEN said that he would vote for the proposition of the gentleman from the county, (Mr. BROWN) because he thought it preferable to that of the gentleman from Beaver (Mr. DICKEY).

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, observed that he would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, notwithstanding he did not like the six months' residence, as it was to be connected with the county and road tax. He would say to the gentleman from Beaver, that if he (Mr. H.) was opposed to all reform, he would unquestionably vote against any tax qualification. The people, generally, in the district from which he (Mr. HIESTER) came, were in favor of doing away with the tax qualification. But, he was sure that the middling class of

Mr. CLEAVINGER, of Green, said that he was opposed to a tax qualification, and therefore would feel himself constrained to vote against the proposition of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia. He thought a residence merely, was sufficient to entitle a man to exercise the elective franchise.

Mr. BANKE, of Mifflin, said he did not know that he would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from the county, because he was opposed to a tax qualification. If the amendment should be agreed to, he would offer a proviso, with a view to bring the conflicting views of the committee together. [Mr. B. here read the proviso.]

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, asked for a division of the question, so as to have a distinct vote on the residence. He was disposed to yield something to compromise, but he could not vote for six months' residence. With respect to the proposition of his friend who had just taken his seat, he would say that if the Convention were to adopt it, he should regard it as an aristocratic measure. He (Mr. S.) would vote against tthe whole amendment, if that proviso were to be added.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, said it was evident, from the proceedings of the past week, that if every friend of reform adhered to his own opinion, that we might build up and pull down to the end of time. This he would not do. He was willing to do that which a majority of those friendly to reform could do, and he trusted they would do-meet on some middle ground-and this would be such as would prove satisfactory to a majority of the people of the State. There were now, he said, four distinct propositions before the committee—the first, six months' residence and a tax; the second, one year's residence and a tax; the third, the report of the committee, one year's residence and no tax; and the fourth, the present Constitutional provision, two years' residence, and a tax, that must be assessed six months before the day of election. On each of these a vote could be taken; and whatever might be the vote on each, he hoped, nay, if he might be allowed to, he would call on the friends of reform not to build up that which would be pulled down, but vote only for what will be satisfactory to all, and in a spirit of just compromise with each other, adopt that amendment which would be sure to be sanctioned by a large and sure majority.

Mr. CHAMBERS, of Franklin, said that, in the amendments submited, we had two propositions, of which we were to make a choice. He was, he confessed, decidedly in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. PORTER) inasmuch as it extended the period of residence, although it required the payment of other taxes. This Convention, in forming a Constitution, had a right to drescribe the qualification of those who were to exercise the right of suffrage. He thought that no one would dispute that position. He repeated that we had a right to say what should be the qualifications of those who participated with us in choosing our representatives to make the laws, or to have them executed. There was nothing unjust, improper, or unreasonable in it. To go further than the case and convenience of the people required, in forming the Government, would be unjust and unreasonable. What, he would inquire, was the object and intention of fixing a residence and imposing a tax?He supposed, it was to furnish evidence that those who complied with

In his opinion, a residence of six months did not furnish sufficient evidence of the intention of a person to remain in the State, not as sojourners, but as permanent residents. It was well known that many persons come into this State in April, and remain till October, and then return to New York, Maryland, or any other State. They come not here with the intention of remaining. Now, those who came from other States, and were engaged on the public works of Pennsylvania, and remained here a couple of years, might fairly be presumed to have taken up their residence with us, and they would be entitled to vote. Their agreeing to pay a tax would also be further evidence that they considered themselves citizens of the Commonwealth; and were willing to contribute to the support of the Government. He prefered the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, to that of the gentleman from the ccounty of Philadelphia, because the latter required too short a term of residence, notwithstanding it was accompanied by a tax.

With regard to foreigners, the laws of the United States required other qualifications than those of the State. They had to be a period of years in the United States, and must also be naturalized. In addition to those requirements, the State of Pennsylvania required residence within her borders of a year. One year was a sufficient time, and, coupled with the exhibition of a disposition to contribute to the public burthens, by the payment of a tax, should entitle any one to participate with us in all the rights of citizenship.

In some of the States, the qualifications necessary to the exercise of the elective franchise were very different from what they are here. So, also, was the policy of many of the States. In New England, emigration is not to the States, but from the States. People were going to the West. And the object of the Western States being to obtain population, their laws were framed accordingly. What, he inquired, had been done in the State of New York? Why, they had required a residence of one year in the city, as well as six months in the country, besides the payment of a tax in New York. The requirements under the Constitution of the State of New York, are greater than was now proposed to be imposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton. In Ohio and Delaware, the payment of a tax was required among other things. So far, then, as we had the opinions of framers of State Constitutions of a similar character to our own, they were decidedly in favor of a residence and tax.

Residence and the payment of a tax, as he had already observed, were evidence of a man's right to participate in the Government. The payment of a tax, answered the purpose of a registry. He thought that a registry should be kept, but not for the sake of keeping one. When a man paid a tax towards the purposes of Government, it did not look as if he did it as an act of mere form, and upon the registry we had his name. Entertaining these views, he felt it his duty to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, and against that of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said that it was personally gratifying to him to know, that after a discussion of more than a week, a large majority of the committee had, at last, brought themselves to the determination of supporting his proposition, if he might be allowed to call it so, or rather that of the

bantling-a proposition of his (Mr. BELL'S.) He, however, had not risen to take charge of it-for he knew that it was, at present, in much better hands than it was originally; and he was sure that the gentleman would secure for it many other votes. He had risen to reply to some of the remarks which had fallen from the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. CHAMBERS). That gentleman had refered to the qualification of voters in other States in order to show that in most of them more than six months' residence is required, and taxation. And, he had argued, that the only reason why a residence was demanded, was, that it was an evidence of a man's intention to become a citizen of this State. Now, he (Mr. B.) would ask, if it was at all probable that any one would come from another State, leave his home and his fireside, merely for the purpose of voting at our elections? And, not only that, but also to pay a tax? If these, then, were the only reasons which could be assigned for the necessity of making the term of residence of a voter so long, than there was an end of the matter. He would state, that when Pennsylvania amended her penal code in 1794, by making its provisions more wild and insecure, objections were urged against modifying, or diminishing the punishment in many violations of the law, on the ground that the punishment was equally as severe in a vast number of the States. Pennsylvania, and it did her high honor, took the lead in revising and moderating the severity of her criminal laws. He hoped, that with respect to her elective franchise, she would, instead of restricting, do every thing to extend that invaluable privilege to her citizens. He trusted that we should soon see the day, when every State in the Union would adopt the policy of admitting their fellow-citizens of their sister States to a full participation in the rights of citizenship upon very short residence.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said he was opposed to the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment, because they retained the tax qualifi cation. He entertained the opinion that the time of residence contained no principle; and the requirement of a tax qualification in order to give the right to vote, was contrary to the spirit and genius of the Government. He trusted that the proposition would be voted down. He was indifferent as to the shape of the section so that the tax qualification was abolished. Identity of residence was all that was sought for by a majori ty; and he would be willing to require a residence of ten days' in the district, doing away with the tax qualification. That would be as great an extension of the right of suffrage as any one could desire. A year's residence had been objected to on the ground that it threw an impediment in the way of emigration to the State. He considered a year's residence in the State necessary. He thought a year's residence would be a sufficient time to enable a person to become acquainted with our policy. But six months' residence was too short a time to identify the interests of an individual with those of this Commonwealth, and to enable him to possess himself of that degree of local information, which was necessary to the intelligent discharge of the duties of a voter. The great inducement held out for emigration to the new States was, that there was no tax qualification, and more especially of a six months' residence. But, then, it was to be recollected that the new States were very differently situated from the old, in many respects, and that they were desirous of improving their territory and obtaining a population. Pennsylvania expected but little in