he vote of Boston,
which gave a majority against the new Constitution of about one
thousand in excess of the negative majority of the entire State.

More serious difficulties, even, were encountered in the attempt to
change the tenure of judges. No inconsiderable portion of the
Convention favored an elective judiciary. To that project I was
opposed. By the co-operation of a number of the members of the
coalition party with the Whigs the proposition was defeated. Next,
a proposition was submitted by Mr. Knowlton of Worcester, to continue
the appointment in the Executive Department, limiting the tenure to
seven years. After an amendment had been agreed to extending the term
to ten years, the proposition was adopted. With some misgivings I
assented to the compromise. The attempt to change the tenure of the
judges was a grave mistake, and it was the efficient cause of the
defeat of the work of the Convention. Beyond this error, the defeat of
the new Constitution was made certain by the course of Bishop
Fitzpatrick of the Catholic Church. For many years the Irish
population of Boston had acted with the Democratic Party. Upon the
question of calling a Convention the adverse majority in Suffolk had
been 2,800 only, but upon the question of ratifying the work of the
Convention the adverse majority was nearly six thousand. To this
result the influence of Bishop Fitzpatrick had contributed essentially.
His reason he did not disguise. Portions of Boston were under the
control of the Irish. A division of the city would open to them seats
in the House and the Senate. The Bishop deprecated their entrance
into active, personal politics. Hence he used his influence against
the new Constitution. Such was his frank statement when the contest
was over.

About the twentieth of June, when I had been a member of the Convention
for twenty days only, General Banks said to me that it was the wish of
our friends that I should move for a committee to prepare the
Constitution for submission to the people. At that time the thought of
such a movement had not occurred to me. The committee was appointed
upon my motion, and, according to usage, I was placed at the head of
it, and from that time I had in my own hands, very largely, the
direction of the business of the Convention. As is usual, the work of
the committee fell upon a few members. In this case the working
members were Richard H. Dana, Jr., and myself. Marcus Morton, Jr