Mr. CHANLER. Mr. Speaker, when the distinguished gentleman. from Pennsylvania yesterday reported this JtResolution, be an nounced, with characteristic complacency and generosity, that he had made an arrangement y which the subject was to be discussed, and promised the House and the country that it should be passed before the sun went down. That threat, however, was like many another threat which a habit of power or an arrogant nature may impel inen to make. The gentleman relied ll on his ability to force his hobby through this case undera caucus resolution before the sun went down. Sir, this measure if passed will tend to obscure the sun from which the liberties of this country derive their nourishment and life, the brilliant orb, the constitution whose light has s read itself to the farthest ends of the earth. be vital principle of that constitution, the soul of its bein, is that balance of power between the States which in sures individunl liberty tq every citizen of each State, and harmony ameng all the States of this Union. I affirm, sir, that the discussion of this subject in the constitutional Convention of 1787 was conducted in a spirit worthy of a great people, and resulted in the noble instrument under whose authority we now live. That era furnishes us a sad comparison with the present epoch, when it may well be said that our Rome has “lost the breed of noble bloods.” and when, so far as the agitation of these fanatical and partisan questions is concerned, reason seems to have fled to brutish beasts.” How differently and With what wise moderation did the framers of the constitution act. No narrow and fanat ical partisanship marks their opinions or their acts. Listen Sir, to the views of Madison on this very question of suffrage, written during the session of the Virginia convention, 1829, 1830: “The right of suffrage bein of vital importance and approving an extension of it to housekeepers and heads of families, I will suggest a few considerations which govern my judgment on the subject. "Werethe constitution on hand to be adaptedto the presentcircumstancesofour country, without taking nto view the changeswhich time is rapidly reducing, hn unlimited extension of theright would probably very little the character of our public councils or measures. But as we are to prepare asystem of vernment for a period which it is hoped will be a ong one, we must look to the prospectivechangesin ittheiscondition and compositionof the society on which “ Ittoi saactl. awof earth under a civilized recmulotwivawteiollnu, nidsccrasptaobolde, otfhyaiet ltdhe lng subsistence for alar csurplusof consumersbeyond those having an immediate interest in the soil; asur plus whichmustincreasewith the increasing improvementsin ijculture and the labor saving arts applied to it. An it is a lo ofhumanity that of this surplus a large proportion is necessaril yreducedb acorn petition or employments to we cs which a 0rdthem the bare necessaries of life. be proportion being Without property, or the hopeofac uirin it, cannot be expected to sympathize sumcient y with its rights toubosafe depositaries of power over them. What is to be done with this unfavored class of  the community? them to a ull sIhfairteboef on one hand unsafe to admit political power. it mustbe rec ollected. on the other. that it cannot be expedient to resist a society having republican government on a portion of the a numerical and physical force exwclhuideehdwforoumld and liable to be turiie againstit and lead to astairding military lbrcc. dangerous to all parties and to liberty itself. his view of the subJectmakesit proper to embracein the partner ship of power eve description of citizen having a sufficient stake in t a public order and the stable administration of the laws, and particularly the house keepers and heads of families most of whom, having given hostages to fortune. will have given them to th"eir country also. This portion of the community. added to those who. although not possessedof a sharcof the soil, are deeply interested in other speciesof property, and hot of them added to the teriitorial proprietors, who. in a certain sense, may be regarded as the owners of the country itself, form the safest basis of freegovernment. To the securityofsuchagovernment, afforded by these combined members, may be further added the political and moral influenceemanatingIrom the actual possessionof authority and a just and beneficia“lIt exercise of it. would be happy if astute of soc ictycould be found or framedin which anequalvoice in making the laws might be allowed to every individual bound to obey them. But this isa theorywhich, like most theories. confessedly requires limitations and modifications and the only questionto be decided in this, ” in other cases, turns in the particular degree of departure in practice required by the esscpeoand obicct of the theory itsel. ”Madison Writings, vol. 4, p. “ and again in his writings, volume one, age 180, in a letter to Mr. John Brown, of Kentucky, asking his opinion on suffrage: 1.” Whether is a representation according to numbers, or reperty, or in aioint proportion to both, the most s o? Or is a reresantation by counties profor ableto a more equita a mode that will be difficult to adjust? nder this question may be considered, 1st, the right of suffrage; 2nd, the mode of suffrage thir, the plan of representation. As to the 1st, I think the extent which ought to be given to this right amatter of great dehciic and of critical importance. To restrain it to the and holders will in timeexcludetoo greata proportion of citizens Without regard to property, or even to all who possessa pit tance. may throw too much power into bandswhich will either abuse it themselves or sell it totherich who will abuseit. I have thought it might be a goodinid discourse to narrow this right in the choice of the least popular, and to enlarge it in that of the more popular branch of the Legislature. Thereis an example of this distinction in NCarolina, ifin none oft o other States. How it operatesor is relishedby the people I cannot say. t would not be surprisin if in the outset, at least, it should offend the senseo equalitywhich reigns in a free country. In a general View Isce no reason why therightsof property, whhich chictiy bears the burden of Government, and is so much an object oflegislation, should not berespected as well as personal rights in the choice of rulers. It must be owned. indeed. that property will give influenceto the holder. though it should givehim no legal apsriovnilcagtleosr, aacnedowuinlltsi, nesgpeenceiaralllybifethsaefebuos9th eastsoaf slewgeislllation be guarded with the provisions hinted at. Sir, the history of the legislation of the rad ical party can be called, without any stretch of language, untimely; it is unjust; and under a (irovernment where Justicejs the supreme prin ci le, whenever such measures are fairly submitted to the people there can be no doubt as to the result. such legislation is unworthy of an American congress, and however good the motive, however high the patriotism which actuated the men who broug t forward these amendments, I am confident that, if they are fairly submitted to the people, they will have such an answer as Will be not only to their satisfaction if they are honest, but to the welfare of the country.