The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-11

question was not cTen necessary for tie par
pose which it's advocates had in vie 4 for.
from late experience, it was known, chat
whenever the majority were disposed CO force
a question. they had it in their powcl. SO 60
do; that such rule was unconstitutional.
because the constitution forbade CossIess TO
restrain the freedom ofspeech. and, IL they
could not restrict the people in the fre cdon
| ot speech, much less surely could they a
bridge that privilege in this HOUSE, the
sanctuary otGecrty; that every men Der of
this House had right to deliver his senti-
msnis on am subject before the House, and
could not be deprived oft that this privi-
lese. like the freedom of speech. was pro-
doc'ive OF some evil, but the moment either
was restrained, such restraint was an inva-
sion OF the principles OF free government
this The rule, however colored, announced
TO ti's, that M nic9Iber OF the minority Should
DC allowed to speak until vote of permissi-
on Tor that purpose was first obtained from
| the majority. /; was asked would the re-
nov::'im ia tie pbnc councils have beea
elected II the freedom ct debate had n,s.
been permitted AT the time when evrrv
thug was going to ruin? If such rule had
been proposed III 1875, the nation would
nave been told, by those who now support
this rule, that it was Tie vital stab to liber-
~. nat which had been wrong yesterday,
was wrong to day; that which would have
been wrcng m one majority could not be-
| right III another 1t tvs also said BY seve-
raj OF the supporters of Mr.. Livermere's
motion, that the ,ae proposed to be stricken
ont was 1T war with political liberty. incnm-
pa,!b!e with freedom cf debate. and in def,
ance Of the spirit of the constitution that
inaJori'ies, who could not be supposed to be
"noiiv exempt from the >infirmiiics of hu-
| NAN nature. might. from the influence of
! passion rush bcadlong into measure with
! Gu The least Coaside ration; that rapidity
was not SO much an object in legislation as
WISDOM, and multitude Of laws often proved
an. evil; finally. that this rule at the prese It
| TIME particularly ought not to be adopted,
as the dnpse might shortly have to decide
the question ut peace or war, on which
much delberaton undoubtedly would be re-
quisite.
On the other hand it was remarked in
support OF the rule. that the evil Intended "a
be guarded against by it, was blended per-
maps WIN some of the best sensations of this
| human mind. a perseverance, in what is
deemed rgh. ny each and that the question
what was right, could not be decided by any
direct standard to which the human mind
Can resort thatit is the principle of this.
| AS OF every free government, that the ma.
|Jority shall rule, and, without assuming that
inc majority is always right, its decision
was the best standard to which they could
resor that the majority. being responsible
| tor all measures adopted, ought not to ne
prevented from acting till too late, by de-
termined opposition; that if the minority in
irnges the right of the majority to govern,
there should be some rule to prevent tins vi
olaton OF the prncip pies of the government
that the privilege each member possessed
of delivering his sentiments. lioweye, pre-
cious, was not so valuable the right which
each member possessed Of acting, and the
itcG fsTrF # Il. IL
Iala"'aiug. as the destruction OF -he govern
nent, which might IL the consequence, rs
tire rules OF tho House A. present stood, il
the minority were obstinately bent OH pre-
venting the II use from acting; that altho'
the project OF dmnlb legislature might
have charmed Bonaparte, he never y7oul
nave mad an oppor' -anty 10 approve any CO 4.
sntutlon, had II not been for the anarchy,
confusion and unresgrdined iicentiousn.ss
which prevailed in the National Convent
On, and which hns..ly destroyed it nj
ii was to prevent such ANARCHY and abuse ct
the freedom Ct debGe, that this rule had
u, cone necessary that rlinorities too wee
subject I" the tai!ings Of nianki:d, and tn It
passion might operate upon them. when a
most urgent law WIS 70 &c passed, by speak
ing Tor SIX hours at time, solely to prevent
the legislature from acSipg, from doing tlat
for which they were expressly chosen t5as
there was No fear OF the measures or acts
ofthe majority being veilrd in darkness, Tor
supposing (wha-: was very improhable,) an
abuse of the rule, the press was open to e.
very man. and could not be restrained; TIA at
the idea of the uncons,itutionality of such =.
rule was absurd, fer the same mode of ar
gument would prove, that the House had
no right to prevent any member from speak
ing more than twice to the same question,
although the Constitution declares, thae
each House may determine the rules of its
/ proceedings; that experience had shown
| that such rule necessary to prevent
| the consumption of the time of the House by
4 members speaking four, FIVE, six or ight
| hours merely for the purpose of spinning out
time, and moving to adjourn, calling the
| yeas and nays on the motion, to give him
self time to take breath, and then NAL king
frivolous motions for the purpose of speaking.
sull longer on them that, in order to do the
public business, 1T no such rule was adopted
it would be necessary for the people to select
their representatives, not for the strength of
heir intellect, but for the robustness of their
constitutions and their capacity of enduring
fatigue (; that the abuse of the freedom of
debate had become fragrant as to impede
all public business, unless those DESTROYS of
doing it would sacrifice their health and
perhaps their hives, in sessions of nineteen
or twenty hours in length. and tn Sc too at
ter subject had been debated ten or twelve
days. Ii was also said, that this was no new
rule that it had existed in this body, with
various mod GrafsOrc