gates had been allowed to proceed with their remarks, when entirely out of order. He repeated that that was the fault of the committee themselves, and not of the Chair. He trusted, that the rule limiting members to speak only a certain time, would be rescinded. There had been so much disorder growing out of the adoption of the rule in question, as to have consumed a great deal of the time of the convention, which might have been profitably spent, if gentlemen, instead of being arrested in the course of their remarks, had been allowed to proceed. If we would avail ourselves of the lesson of experience we had already taken, much time, he was sure, would be saved by it.

He could scarcely believe that any gentleman really thought that time was wasted in discussing the vital and important questions before this convention. We could not advise the people, without consulting among

ourselves.

Suppose, a farmer to ask a lawyer his advice with respect to a title to his lands, does not the farmer wish him to take time in consultation ? Undoubtedly he does. He would tell him to deliberated-not to speak previously but to consult and take what time was necessary.

He (Mr. Merrill)cared not how long this convention deliberated-for deliberation could not be dispensed with. It was his settled determination to support every gentleman who was speaking to the subject before the Chair. No delegate ought to be called on to take his seat, at the very moment, perhaps, he was imparting valuable information. Proceeding in this extraordinary manner, was not preparing ourselves to give advice to the people. He thought that we ought to desist from making any further experiments. So long as this body had followed in the beaten track of those conventions that had heretofore been held, it had gone right. But, the moment it had departed therefrom, difficulties and unpleasantness occurred.

He thought that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll) and the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) had good cause to complain of their arguments being so cut up by interruptions.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, moved the previous question; which was sustained.

The question next recurring was shall the main question be now put?"

Which was agreed to.

And the question then was on agreeing to the resolution.

Mr. BEDFORD, of Luzerne, asked for the yeas and nays; which being taken, the question was decided in the negative-yeas, 60; nays, 62.

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Earle, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hiester, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Nevin, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, Weidman, Woodward-60.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningbam, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donagan, Doran, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Harris, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Maclay, Martin, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Royer, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Young, Sergeant, President-62.

SEVENTH ARTICLE.
1

The CHAIR announced that, at the adjournment of the convention, last evening, the question pending was on the motion to grant leave to the committee to sit again-on which motion the yeas and nays had been ordered.

Mr. HIESTER, who had made that demand, rose and said that he would withdraw the same.

And, thereupon, the question having been taken on the ordinary motion, and leave having been granted:

The convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. REIGART in the chair, on the report of the committee, to whom was referred the seventh article of the constitution.

The amendment to the amendment being again under consideration. [Mr. MEREDITH, here commenced and concluded his remarks, for which see APPENDIX.]

Mr. KONIGMACHER, of Lancaster, said:

Mr. Chairman, this subject has been decided at Harrisburg, and we have been discussing it in various shapes, ever since we came to this place. Many members who are anxious to express their views, have not yet had an opportunity. But this discussion has taken so wide a range, and consumed so much time, that it is evident that the committee is impa tient to get the vote.

I had intended to give my views, relative to some unfounded charges made by members, but they have been so pointedly refuted, that I will forego that intention. I therefore, call the previous question.

Mr. M'CAHEN called for the yeas and nays on ordering the main question, which were ordered, and were yeas 60, nays 56, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Phildadelphia, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny Dickey, Dickerson, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Heister, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Maclay M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-60.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bonham, Brown, of Northampger, Chauncey, Clarke, of Indiana, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll Darrah, Dilinton, Donagan, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart,

Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hopkinson, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggert, Weaver, Woodward-56.

So the main question was ordered to be now put.

The main question was on agreeing to the report of the committee, that it is inexpedient to make any amendment to the third section of the seventh article of the constitution.

Mr. BANKS called for the yeas and nays on the main question, which were ordered, and were yeas 64, nays 54, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Heister, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-64.

NAYE-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble,Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Overfield, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward-54.

So the report of the committee was agreed to.

Mr. EARLE rose to offer an amendment to the section.

The CHAIR said that it was not in order, inasmuch as the convention had adopted a resolution, declaring that when the vote should be taken on the then pending question, the convention should proceed to the second reading of the constitution.

Mr. EARLE appealed from this decision, on the ground that this resolution could not rescind an established rule of the convention.

The CHAIR stated that the resolution was not to be viewed as an alteration of a rule of the convention, but as merely applicable to this special purpose.

Mr. EARLE then withdrew his appeal; and,

The committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again; and,

The Convention adjourned.

FRIDAY AFTERNOON, DECEMBER 29, 1837.

The CHAIR announced that, agreeably to the resolution adopted by the Convention, all the reports and other propositions to amend the constitution would be considered as on second reading, and proceeded in accordingly.

A motion made was by Mr. PORTER of Northampton,

That the convention proceed to the consideration of the ninth article of the constitution as on second reading.

A motion was made by Mr. DICKEY,

To amend the said motion by striking out the words "the ninth article" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the amendments to the first article of the constitution."

Mr. PORTER said, he would not unnecessarily consume the time of the convention, but he wished to say a single word in explanation of his reasons for the motion he had submitted. It was well known that there were certain amendments placing restrictions upon the legislature, which it had been the desire of many gentlemen to insert in some of those parts of the constitution which had been passed upon in committee, but which, as it was contended at the time, did not properly belong to any of those parts.

He was of opinion that those amendments did not belong to any other part of the constitution but to the ninth article. It was desirable that the convention should know in what place, in what order, and at what time these restrictions upon the legislature should be introduced; and, for that reason, should prefer, inasmuch as the convention had not entered at all into the consideration of the ninth article, that we should take it up now, in order to see where we should bring these amendments in.

Mr. STERIGERE submitted that the motion to amend the motion of the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) was not in order, and could not therefore be entertained at this time.

After some conversation on the point of order,

The CHAIR decided that the amendment was not in order, and that the motion of the gentleman from Northampton was neither amendable, nor debateable.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the motion, that the convention proceed to the consideration of the ninth article of the constitution as on second reading?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DICKEY and Mr. CURLL, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Cline, Coates, Crain, Cummin, Dillinger, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Hastings, Helffenstein, Houpt, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Lyons, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Nevin, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Riter, Royer, Scheetz, Sellers, Serrill, Shellito, Sterigere, Taggart, Weaver, Young-38.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Banks, Barndollar, Redford, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler. of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver. Clarke, of Dauphin, Clark, of Indiana, Cleavenger, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crawford, Crum, Curll, Darlingtan, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donagan, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Hyde, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay, Magee, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Ritter, Russell, Seager, Seltzer, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stevens, Stickel, Todd, Weidman, Woodward, and Sergeant, President-67.

So the motion was not agreed to.

A motion was then made by Mr. DICкBY,

That the convention proceed to the second reading and consideration of the amendments made to the first article of the constitution.

Mr. STEVENS hoped the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) would so extend his motion, as that the articles might be taken up in their order.

And Mr. DICKEY modified his amendment accordingly.

After some further consideration, the question was taken on the motion of Mr. Dickey, and was decided in the affirmative.

So the motion was agreed to.

The Secretary then proceeded to read the amendments to the first article of the constitution. A long debate followed on a point of order raised by Mr. EARLE, as to the order of proceeding.

When a motion was made by Mr. MEREDITH,

To postpone the further consideration of the first article, for the present, which motion was agreed to.

So the consideration of the same was postponed.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, on leave, offered the following resolution, which was read a first time:

Resolved, That on second reading, the Convention will consider the several articles of the constitution in their numerical order, and that the sections shall be read in the same order, and be considered and open for amendment: Provided, That when any section shall have been amended in committee of the whole, the section shall be read as amended.

Mr. M. moved to dispense with the rule which requires resolutions to lie on the table one day; which was agreed to.

And the resolution was then read a second time.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, moved to amend by striking out the words" amended in committee of the whole."

Mr. MEREDITH explained, that the effect of striking out the words in question, would be that the amendments made in committee of the whole would not be read.

Mr. STERIGERE then withdrew his amendment.