consistent with the preservation of the general principle. So far he was not only willing, but anxious to go. But they must stop somewhere. The proposition now offered, if adopted in the constitution, would really and vitally destroy the main principle which had been established. They would establish the principle in form, but would provide the means by which its object might be completely and silently done away. They had made already such provision that the right of equality of denominations could not be sacrificed, but if they engrafted this proposition into the constitution, it would take away the power of the Legislature to compel the support of public worship in any part of the Commonwealth. Its tendency would be by taking the subject out of the sphere of legislation, to put it out of the reach of law. He had no objection to its remaining as a law, and there was no probability that it would be repealed unless it was abused. If it was in the constitution, the Legislature, the courts and juries would be bound by their oaths to sanction even the abuses that might be committed under it. Should it be repealed, the great principles of it are already adopted in the amendments agreed to—that unincorporated societies shall be put on the footing of those that are incorporated, and that every person shall be free to go to what society he pleases, and have his taxes paid to the support of religious instruction there.
MR. LINCOLN of Worcester said that what the ultra liberals and the ultra royalists in religion had acquiesced in, seemed to be a point at which we ought to stop. If this proposition were made originally, before any other propositions had been accepted, it would have been entitled to a more favorable hearing; but the Convention had adopted a principle that was repugnant to it. He had forewarned certain gentlemen that they were yielding more than they intended; but they acted for themselves, and he acted consistently in holding them to their concessions. The Congregationalists were not contending for superior privileges, but while they were willing on the one hand to extend to other denominations an equality of rights and immunities, they were not willing on the other to be bound in fetters, as they would be by this resolution. For what was the third resolution of the committee on the declaration of rights which had been adopted by the Convention? That resolution makes it imperative on the Legislature to compel Congregational societies to support public worship. While by this the gentlemen compel Congregationalists to support public worship, why should they call upon Congregationalists to free them from any compulsion? If the third resolution was a part of their proceedings which it was too late to alter, it was improper to call upon Congregationalists alone to support public teachers. All he contended for was equal rights. He stood there as a Congregationalist to resist being put under subordination. But if the proposition of the gentleman from Boston [Rev. Baldwin] should be adopted, there would be subordination. And of whom? Of the Congregationalists; if you compel them to pay for the support of religion and exonerate every other denomination of Christians. Let the gentleman from Boston, he said, consider that by the third resolution it is provided that every society, incorporated or unincorporated, shall support public worship. And what was the resolution, passed in the morning? That every citizen shall appropriate his contributions to whatever society he pleases. He asked if by these provisions all classes of Christians were not on the same footing. If then you provide that a Congregationalist shall support religion and compel him to support a teacher of his denomination, it was altogether unequal to pass this resolution for giving an exemption to others. In this way, he contended, gentlemen did make a subordination. He was willing to go as far in liberality as any man, but there was a point, where he must pause; and instead of putting all other denominations in subordination to Congregationalists, he could not consent to put Congregationalists in subordination to every other denomination… .
The principal debate on the suffrage came on December 11 on a motion to reconsider the vote in committee of the whole to abolish all pecuniary qualification for the franchise. The issue is developed in the brief speeches of the Reverend Edmund Foster of Littleton and Warren Dutton, George Blake, Josiah Quincy, and James T. Austin—all of Boston. Some reformers assailed the existing suffrage requirement as “aristocratical,” but neither reformers nor conservatives put much stock in this objection and approached the question largely as one of expediency. Even Quincy, who was remembered as a Federalist champion in the Jeffersonian years and who was now embarking on a career in state politics, based his defense of the qualification on prospective rather than present dangers. The motion to reconsider passed on December 12 on the casting vote of the president. Blake, who had the responsibility of steering the revision of the third article through the convention, now backed away from the universal suffrage he had earlier advocated and proposed a taxpaying qualification. It was promptly approved and became one of the fourteen recommended amendments.
The resolution offered by Mr. Keyes, on Saturday, and referred to this committee, proposing to abolish all pecuniary qualification in electors of officers under this government, was taken up by the committee.
MR. NICHOLS of South Reading moved that the committee should rise. Negatived.
MR. PARKER of Charlestown moved to pass over the resolution, on account of the absence of the mover. Negatived.
The question was then taken on the resolution, and decided in the affirmative, 185 to 157.
MR. ALVORD of Greenfield moved a reconsideration of the last vote.
MR. FOSTER of Littleton said he was not present when the vote was taken, but he should have voted in the affirmative. He would not question the right to require such a qualification, but he had been for several years convinced that it was inexpedient and mischievous. Either a greater amount of property should be required, or none at all. Great difficulties were occasioned by this requisition at every election, and continual questions asked of this sort—what property have you? have you the tools of any trade? Yes. What else? A pair of steers my father gave me. And if this was not enough, then, he said, a note, which is never intended to be paid, makes up the balance. Men in this Commonwealth become freemen when they arrive at twenty-one years of age; and why oblige them to buy their freedom? They perform militia duty—they pay a tax for all they possess, that is, their polls. Nothing, he said, of so little consequence in itself, was so ardently desired, as an alteration in this part of the constitution. Men who have no property are put in the situation of the slaves of Virginia; they ought to be saved from the degrading feelings.
MR. BOND of Boston said the reverend gentleman was mistaken on one point. The resolution did not confine the right of voting to those who paid a poll tax; but paupers also were embraced by it.
MR. FOSTER said he did not mean to allow them the privilege of voting.
MR. DUTTON said he was in favor of reconsideration. He had voted against the resolution, which, it is now understood by those who supported it, ought to be modified so as to exclude paupers. Although the resolution as it passed, was without limitation, still he was willing to consider it, as modified in the manner suggested. It introduced a new principle into the constitution. It was universal suffrage. There were two ways of considering it. 1st. As a matter of right. 2d. As a matter of expediency. As to the right, he inquired why paupers were excluded at all, if it was a common right; and if it was not, then there was the same right in the community to exclude every man, who was not worth two hundred dollars, as there was to exclude paupers, or persons under twenty-one years. In truth there was no question of right; it was wholly a question of expediency. He thought it expedient to retain the qualification in the constitution. It was in the nature of a privilege, and as such, it was connected with many virtues, which conduced to the good order of society. It was a distinction to be sought for; it was the reward of good conduct. It encouraged industry, economy and prudence; it elevated the standard of all our civil institutions, and gave dignity and importance to those who chose, and those who were chosen. It acted as a stimulus to exertion to acquire what it was a distinction to possess. He maintained that in this country, where the means of subsistence were so abundant, and the demand for labor so great, every man of sound body could acquire the necessary qualification. If he failed to do this, it must be, ordinarily, because
