from the burthen imposed by our present laws. On the contrary, the proportion now is so diversified, that, after a repeal of those laws, the equality would probably be greater. This repeal, too, beside the prevention of incidental and legal cost, would effect an improvement in the general economy of towns in the management of the poor. Το check the voluntary incursion of paupers from other places, towns would furnish a maintenance no more sumptuous than necessity required, and, for the same purpose, would compel the poor to perform all the labor their ability might permit. It is obvious that these indirect consequences, by lessening the annual expenses of mere maintenance, will be almost as useful to the public as the direct consequences before mentioned. Should a total repeal of our laws in respect to settlement be deemed inexpedient, these incidental and legal expenses might possibly be reduced, by greater difficulty in the methods to obtain future settlements; and, possibly, by the organization of a cheaper tribunal than courts of law to adjudicate upon pauper questions. But on these points no improved system has been matured by us; and, after much reflection, we doubt whether any change, short of a total repeal, would effect a very sensible reduction of this class of expenses. All which is respectfully submitted. June 9, 1821. LEVI WOODBURY, MARTIAL LAW.* THE chair called the committee to order, and directed that the bill of rights should first be read through, and afterwards be read by clauses. [The bill of rights was here read.] Article 34 reads thus: "No person can, in any case, be subjected to law martial, or to any pains or penalties by virtue of that law, except those employed in the army or navy, the military in actual service, but by authority of the Legislature." and except A speech made in convention to amend the constitution of New Hampshire, 1850, against the power to declare martial law. Judge Woodbury moved to strike out "but by authority of the Legislature," which, he said, authorized the Legislature to apply the law martial to citizens in private life; and he would allow no Legislature to apply to him the cat, at the drum's head. This could not be done without abolishing the whole constitution; and the power was not necessary. It would not be tolerated, except in cases of war; and scarcely then, even in the army. He spoke of the law martial separate from the military code. The fact was, there was no law martial. It was no law. It was a contempt of law. If we ever get into such a state of society that any man must be tried at the drum-head by a court martial, the foundation of society was broken up. This power belonged to the General Government in time of war, if anywhere; but they had never dreamed of applying the law martial to persons in civil and private life. The motion prevailed unanimously. PROTESTANT TEST FOR HOLDING OFFICES.* BEING opposed to the test, that some of our principal offices shall not be filled except by persons of the Protestant religion, I ask leave to offer a few reasons for it. I do it quite as much to vindicate our fathers in part for inserting it, as myself for resisting it. Constitutions, it is conceded, ought to be durable instruments, being the great fundamental laws passed by the people, and lasting at times, as ours has, without a shadow of a change, for half a century; yet I am willing, when a provision like this becomes hostile to the tolerant spirit of the age and a more enlightened public opinion, to expunge it at once from our system of government. I do this, too, the more readily at the present moment, in order to present another illustration to the world how easily laws, and even constitutions, where objectionable, can be changed and rechanged in this free country, without a resort to violence, and to measures treasonable to public liberty, and the safety, as well as best interest, of our blessed Union. Nor is it that I oppose religion, but support it. I am neither deistic nor innovating rashly. On a little examination, it will be found that this test crept into the constitution originally under a temporary impulse, and without having *A speech made in State convention to amend the constitution of New Hampshire, 1850, against religious tests for holding office. any influence on the affairs of the State practically, as they then stood. This is the vindication of our fathers. Tradition says-and I probably had it, in early life, from the venerable parent of the member from Epping (Mr. PLUMER),—that parent, the Nestor of the politicians of that generation, and sole survivor of the convention of 1791-that the provision was inserted, in 1784, to repel taunts which had been flung out by some, after the French alliance, that there was to be an alliance also with the French religion, and the establishment of it here. The provision fell then still-born,so few Catholics existed in the State. But, in 1791, the impropriety of retaining it on principle became so manifest, that after one or two ineffectual efforts, the convention voted to erase it, and a majority of the people concurred with them; yet not being quite two-thirds, the provision remained, though against the will of a decided majority. The principle of the test was even then so odious, that, as Catholics increased since in the State, from a mere handful, another convention would, I think, long ere this, have been called for expunging this alone, had they become numerous, or had the test been much more than a brutum fulmen, or used practically to oppress them. If any soreness against Catholic persecutions of the Puritans abroad mingled with this, and rendered prejudices stronger with some against erasing the test, they ought, for more recent persecution by Laud and the Episcopalians in England, to have excluded them also. But it was right to exclude neither. Now, under more auspicious circumstances, we have, and I trust will improve, the opportunity to do justice to all. There is now no dread of French influence, or French religion. The rights of all Christians at least to equal freedom and power in our system of government have become a practical question, and should, of course, be settled on broad, enlightened and humane principles. Fifty years, with their discussions and researches and experiments, have poured a flood of light over the true nature of liberty of conscience, and all its great safeguards. Let us, then, do what our fathers themselves would, if now living, under increased light and experience. How does the question stand, under republican principles of government? By them, constitutions and laws are made more to protect rights than confer them. They are made for protecting liberty, equality, conscience, property and life, rather than to give most of these, or to establish any particular set of religious opinions. This is not that religion is a minor concern, and not, in some view, the greatest for an immortal being, but rather that religion is a concern between God and man, and seldom to be interfered with by governments. Such intolerant interference has caused oceans of blood to flow, and millions to perish at the stake; and was one of the great causes which expelled our fathers to a wilderness, and the mercy of savage foes. The republican government afterwards established here should, if true to republican principles, shield all in their religious tenets, while conducting peacefully, and protect all in their pursuits and worship, however different, while acting as good citizens; or it becomes suicidal, and, like despotism, persecutes differences of opinions, and introduces the grossest irregularities. How does the question stand, on the principles of our bill of rights? It is forced to admit that each sect should enjoy, and it does now enjoy here, the privilege to hold property. If to hold that, why not to protect it by laws, which each helps to make? It concedes to each sect the right to sue for injuries to character, for injuries to children and wife, and to worship God in freedom. Why not, then, let them aid in legislating to protect all these? You hold out the husk, but withdraw the kernel. You allow fire-arms, but neither gunpowder nor lead, to load them and make them effective. In the bill of rights you pledge, also, to all sects, equality; but afterwards, by this test, you make all but Protestants unequal. You promise entire freedom of conscience to all, and treat it in the fourth article as so high a privilege as not to be in any way alienable, and yet you leave others than Protestants defenceless as to it, by disfranchising them from filling offices to secure it by legislation. It is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and of the very first article in your bill of rights, declaring all men equal. You do not thus give to all men equal privileges. It is, also, in the teeth of the same bill of rights, to say one sect shall not be subordinate to another, and still disfranchise one, or let one hold offices forbidden to others. It is likewise contrary to all sound experience and reason, to say, as we do, that Catholics may vote, but not be voted for; and that they may be well competent for one duty, and not the other. So it is inconsistent to say, as we do, that they may be jurors or judges, yet not legislators; or agree, as we do in the constitution of the Union, that Catholics may be fit and safe for members of Congress, senators, cabinet officers,-yea, presidents, and yet denounce them as unfit and unsafe at home to represent one hundred and fifty polls in one of our small townships. It is, in truth, much like the great grievance which led to our Revolution,-taxation without representation. All other than Protestant sects are virtually deprived of representation, as they are made ineligible to the Legislature. Their opinions and wishes are unheard there from themselves. They are branded. They are driven forth as with the mark of Cain, for servitude and ignominy. Why not as well explicitly say—and not do it covertly- that none but Protestants are fit for a republic? Why not say that Catholic Maryland is unfit? Catholic Ireland? Catholic France? Why halt at half-way measures? Why not say it is a mere creed in religious faith, and not the mind, heart, morals, which render men suitable for self-government? Or, that we establish government for the former alone, and not to secure liberty, character, property and life? Indeed, this test debars man from what we allow to the degraded African, as he is eligible here to hold office, as well as to vote. It seems often to have been overlooked, likewise, that these tests are restraints or chains on those who make them, as well as on others. The Protestant himself cannot now vote here for a Catholic, any more than a Catholic can vote for one, though the candidate may be, on all hands, confessedly the best qualified man for State representative, senator or governor. If urged that the power to make such tests in constitutions exists, it is no more an argument for the moral and political right to do it, than it is, because we have the naked power, that we have also the moral and political right, to unite church and State, create an inquisition, or, having stripped other sects of the privilege to hold office, to go further, and rob them of equal rights to earth, air, fire and water, and the same hopes and means for happiness, both in time and eternity. One One profession alone in business might, on a like ground, be admitted to sit in the Legislature, such as merchants or lawyers. While the present test continues, it is with an ill-grace we can call other countries bigoted, who, like England, have emancipated the Catholics, and made contributions for their education. All the former fears, as to their numbers or political principles, have now become groundless. In most Catholic countries, Jesuitism is banished, and the inquisition abolished, and the Pope himself has become quite a reformer and republican; and Catholics generally are not believed, in morals or the religious sentiment, to be behind the age, or the true standard for public liberty. What other sect shall throw at them the first stone? What one vindicate the present exclusion, and not admit that, if other than Protestant sects had a majority here, these last should not also be stripped of power; and that our ancestors' complaints of penalties and disfranchisements were ill-founded? It is doing what we have always censured in others. The error is, that this exclusion concedes, in principle, that religion is to be regulated by a majority, rather than the sincere conviction and conscience of each individual; or, that only certain sects are moral and intelligent enough to exercise political power, which is fallacious and false, under our systems of free schools and universal education; or, that reason and Providence cannot uphold correct principles, without our feeble aid and our proscriptions; and that Deity, or his adorable Son, need persecution of some sects to sustain and render triumphant pure religion. So, if it be insisted that one denomination must be better and more trustworthy than the rest,-which may as well be done, even among Protestants,-why not trust to that one alone, and proscribe all the rest, though Protestant? Which shall be that special favorite? So, which one profession shall, under a like system, rule? What sect do Sidney, or Locke, or Jefferson, or Madison, think fit to be trusted with legislative power? How is this, too, in our neighboring republics? Do they thus ostracize a part? On the contrary, they had the experience of the Revolution to aid them, by the Catholic Carrols and Lafayettes, being moral and brave as the most Puritanical; and many others of that creed have fought side by side with |