worse; because by putting this resolution into the constitution, the Legislature would be deprived of the power to correct such abuses… .
MR. SIBLEY of Sutton hoped the resolution would prevail. As experience was the best master, he would mention that it was twenty-five years since they had had any parish tax for the support of public worship. While taxes were assessed, the society continually diminished till it had almost come to nothing; but they adopted the method of taxing pews, and now the society flourished. No person was compelled to attend public worship or contribute to its support, but every person who had any claims to respectability contributed voluntarily. He did not like to hear so much said about the superior goodness of the seaports compared with the country towns. He was a Congregationalist, but he was in favor of the present resolution.
MR. DUTTON… . This was the fourth attempt that had been made to do away the force and effect of the great principle in the bill of rights. This principle, a large majority had determined to maintain; and they were now called upon, again, to surrender it in the spirit of conciliation. Many moving appeals had been made to the candor and liberality of the majority; but he would ask gentlemen to consider what was the true meaning of this language. In his apprehension it was nothing short of this—give us all we ask and we shall be satisfied—yield the principle which you have sustained in every form, and which you deem vital to the best welfare of the State, and we shall be content; surrender, at this last trial, all that you have resolved to hold, and we shall give up the contest. Let it be remembered that the majority have acted on the defensive; that they have been compelled to defend their principles, assailed as they have been in every form that ingenuity could suggest, and with a perseverance which he should think praiseworthy if he thought the object so. But upon this subject it was in vain to attempt to disguise or conceal the truth. There was an irreconcilable difference of opinion; and whenever the reverend gentleman and his friends were satisfied, he was sure he should not be. The conciliation so much recommended, demanded everything and gave nothing; and before he could become a party to it, he must know upon what terms it was to be had. The gentleman who introduced these resolutions has frankly avowed his opinion that religion ought not to be supported except by voluntary contribution; the majority have determined, after a long and repeated discussion, that it is not only the unquestioned right of the State, but its solemn duty to compel men by law to maintain the public worship of God in all cases where it is not done voluntarily. Upon this subject there can be no compromise, no conciliation. The reverend gentleman had urged, that because a man was obliged to pay his taxes where he lived, though he might carry them where he attended public worship, it made one denomination of Christians subordinate to another. If this was ever true, the resolution passed this morning placed Congregationalists on the same footing; but in truth it never came within the meaning of the clause referred to in the constitution. The amendment which has passed recognizes the existence of unincorporated societies. He had voted for this, but he could go no farther. They now stood on the same ground with incorporated societies, were subject to the same duties, and equally under the control of the Legislature. But these resolutions now propose to engraft into the constitution the second section of the law of 1811. He was wholly opposed to this, not because he was opposed to the law, but because he was opposed to making it a part of the constitution. The whole difference, in his opinion, lay between having these provisions in a law, and having them in a constitution. So long as they remained a law, they were subject to revision and modification… .
MR. STORY opposed the proposition… . The Convention had determined by a large majority that it was fit and proper that the Legislature should be invested with authority to require that towns, parishes and religious societies shall make provision for the institution of the public worship of God, and the support of religious teachers in all cases where it is not done voluntarily—they had placed the rights and duties of unincorporated societies on the same footing with those that are incorporated—they had extended the right of withdrawing from a territorial parish so as to permit a person to go from one society to another of the same denomination and pay his taxes there. In adopting these indulgences they had given the greatest latitude 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