have become weary. To get rid of the debate, you discharge the committee of the whole, and call the previous question, and thus cut off the nine amendments previously adopted, important as they may be, in order to get rid of the tenth, and the discussion to which it had led. It was the only mode of getting rid of the question. As we had to fight the principal battle in committee of the whole, and settle all the great questions there, we should have the benefit of the rule in that body where the great battle is fought. It was not the custom to call the yeas and nays in committee of the whole, and he had therefore introduced the rule, and thought it should not be repealed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM, of Mercer, stated his impression, from what he had heard from the gentleman from Philadelphia, and especially, from the gentleman from Susquehanna, that the rule ought to be rescinded. The gentleman from Susquehanna had convinced him, more than the gentleman from Philadelphia. He had gone on the ground that we settle the great principles in committee of the whole. For that very reason, there ought to be full, free and ample discussion. That, therefore, if there were no other reason, that was a sufficient one for rescinding the rule. Why should they hamper themselves in committee of the whole more than in any other body, where there was full, free and ample discussion. Would you gag members from offering amendments, and giving their views? For this reason alone, therefore, the rule ought to be rescinded, independently of the reasons given by the gentleman from the city, and the custom as it prevailed in all deliberative bodies. As we had to settle the principles in the committee of the whole, we ought to have a free discussion. If we look back, we shall find that it was proposed to go through committee of the whole, and without further action, or second reading, to submit the amendments to the people. You would not do this, after stopping all amendments and all debate, and thus precluding the people from having the benefit of the full opinions of the members.

Mr. MEREDITH wished to see who it was, and what party it was, that was about to impose a gag on the freedom of debate. Our ancestors, who framed the present Constitution, had no previous question. They were of the opinion that the persons who had been elected to the Conven tion by the people, for the purpose of changing the fundamental law, should have the opportunity of expressing their sentiments freely and fully. He did not expect that the gentleman from Susquehanna would have introduced a provision which went to restrain the freedom of discussion in cominittee of the whole. And why had the gentleman taken this course? Because a minority may prevent a majority from acting, a majority perhaps, of a single vote, as we have seen in a recent division, where the vote stood 54 to 55. It is, therefore, because the fifty-four may insist on their right of expressing their opinions in the hope of converting the one which constitutes the majority against them. He looks on this as an evil, and all those who oppose the present resolution, look on it as an evil.— Results are not to be brought about by discussion. It may be competent for those who hold that opinion, to operate elsewhere, for aught he knew.The gentleman from Susquehanna had no right to charge him with intending to waste time. He had brought forward this proposition from a sense of duty, feeling as every one must feel, who sits here with a gag in his mouth. The gentleman says the mode of discharging the committee is mischievous

in its effect, because, if the committee be discharged pending a motion to amend the tenth section, it would destroy the amendments in the nine pre reding sections. The gentleman does not heed precedents, but he (Mr. M.) would like to see a precedent for this. The committee report the report, a Bill with certain amendments. Are they cut off? The gentle Mr. M. concluded with

man only finds this evil in his own imgination.

a few remarks, for the purpose of carrying out this view.

Mr. READ did not think it necesssary to grant precedents to convince the gentleman from Philadelphia that it is a maxim that amendments not upheld by the committee, are cut out. If leave for the committee to sit again be refused, all the amendments agreed to in that committee of the whole are cut out, because they are not reported.

Mr. MEREDITH: The gentleman from Susquehanna has gone back to the proceedings of the Senate, where there are no minutes kept. It is not the same here, where there is an order that the proceedings of the committee shall be reported every morning, and entered on the journals. Every morning, therefore, the committee report its proceedings.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, said, the gentleman from Susquehanna was right as to part of his view of the order. The order to lay the minutes on the table every morning, was not sufficient to authorize the action of the Convention on the proceeding of the committee, without some slight alteration of the rule. Still he was in favor of the resolution. The British Parliament never considered the previous question in committee of the whole. Our discussions in committee of the whole ought to be free, not so much out of respect to ourselves, as to the people. If this resolution should be adopted, the previous question will not exist in the committee of the whole. He hoped the gentleman from Philadelphia would accept an amendment which he would suggest, as follows: "And that when the motion for the previous question is carried in the negative in the Convention, it shall not have the effect of postponing the main question".

Mr. MEREDITH hoped this would be made a separate motion. Under the rule, every proposition to change the rules must lie one day. It was a distinct proposition which the gentleman from Montgomery could bring forward at any other time.

Mr. STERIGERE withdrew his amendment.

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, thought the gentleman from Susquehanna'had his hands pretty full on this question. An honest Chronicler of this House (said Mr. D.) told me yesterday, that the radicals had made one thousand and forty-five speeches up to the 28th of this month. The gentleman from Susquehanna had made fifty-four out of the one thousand and forty-five. He supposed the gentleman from Susquehanna desired to choke down the debate on this ground, although he would not express it openly, that as he had taken his full share of the debate, he was satisfied that it should now stop. If the gentleman from Susquehanna would multiply his fifty-four speeches by one hundred and thirty-three--the number of members-we should have an aggregate of seven thousand one hundred and two speeches, and he presumed the gentleman would now be disposed to stop, having given his full share. He (Mr. D.) had no objection to make against the fifty-four speeches of the gentleman from Susquehanna; because he listened. to them with pleasure, as they always contained much good sense. It

would be cruel to keep out other speeches. The MUHLENBERG democrats wont be able to say what they have prepared, and of the other party there must be two hundred speeches yet to come in. He had only intend. ed to throw out this word or two by way of comfort.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, rose to reply to the gentleman from Susquehanna, and to express his dissent from the principles laid down by him that the majority have a right to rule the minority. He denied the correctness of the assertion, unless that principle were connected with another. That principle, standing alone, was unsound. The principle to be connected with it was, that the minority have a right to be heard. In politics as well as morals, this was equally true. How was this Government composed? It was a Government of individuals, either meeting or by deputies here. What was the compact of the whole? That they should meet together, either in person, or by their representatives-that they should discuss matters of general interest-that all parties should be heard and that when the subjects are fully discussed, the minority shall submit to the majority. But if that were not done, then the majority had no right to ask the obedience of the minority. What was the course pursued in regard to elections? Was not the minority heard through the ballot boxes? Certainly they were. He would not deny that where some great public interest was at stake-that in an emergency almost amounting to necessity, the principle contended for by the gentleman, might be applicable-when the minority should have their mouths closed by the previous question? He (Mr. H.) would suppose the case of a question pending in Congress on the evening of the third of March-it being the short session, when they are limited to a certain hour, and this question, an appropriation bill to carry on the Government. Suppose some of the members so regardless of their duty, and of the welfare of the country, as to waste the time of the House in making speeches, in consequence of which the bill might be lost, but for the application of the previous question On such an occasion as that, the majority would have a right to cut off debate. He had never voted for it in any public body, and nothing but the most pressing and imperative circumstances would induce him to do so, or to give his assent to the adoption of that course.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, had no apprehension as to the previous question being called, except on proper occasions, or that it would be made use of to cut off debate when it might be calculated to throw more light on the subject under consideration. His belief was, that while the members of the Convention conducted themselves prudently and faithfully in relation to the trust committed to their charge, they would have no reason to fear the call for the previous question. Surely no gentleman on that floor entertained an idea of that sort, or imagined that injury would be done him, or the Commonwealth, on account of it. The rule was not going to be resorted to, for the purpose of putting down any member. That being the impression on his mind, he felt very unwilling to rescind the rule.Indeed, he thought it would be of advantage in furthering the business.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said that he could see no use in going into committee of the whole, unless they accomplished the object of so doing. We had determined that the Constitution should be considered in committee of the whole, for the purpose of allowing greater latitude of debate, than under the rule which governed the body, when sitting as a

Convention. This was the course pursued in all Legislative bodies. We, however, had carried the principle a little further, for we expressly restricted the calling of the previous question while a member was speaking. Now, that was going one step further than was once allowed in the Legislature of Pennsylvania. Some gentlemen, it appeared, now wanted to rescind that part of the rule, which forbade the calling of the previous question in committee of the whole. He would ask whether it was not strikingly inconsistent to destroy the object for which the Convention go into committee of the whole, by authorizing the previous question to be called? He had said the other day, and he would say now, that it was a perfect anomaly in legislation to adopt that course of proceeding. While he regreted the unnecessary time that was consumed in rambling debates, producing crimination and re-crimination, he could not give his consent to clog the operations of the body, by saying that members shall not express their opinions. The Convention went into committee of the whole to give every gentleman an opportunity to express his views and opinions freely and openly, and to offer their amendments for consideration and discussion, with a liberality and freedom, which could not be done in Convention. What, he would ask, was the object of going into committee of the whole, if we were to be restricted as much as in the Convention? Why abolish that part of the rule, merely to change the presi ding officer? If that was all-if we were to permit the previous question to be called in committee, he would, without hesitation, say that he would vote for rescinding the rule. He was not present at the time the rule was adopted, or he would have expressed the opinion which he had now done concerning it.

Mr. FORWARD. Of Allegheny, said that he did not profess to be intimately acquainted with the subject; but, he had discovered from what he had heard, and from reflection, that the rule ought to be rescinded. What, he asked, was the reason, urged against calling the previous question in committee of the whole? Why, that the minority might be inclined to abuse the privilege of debate. Was there any other reason than that? None. Now, if that reason be good for any thing, it might just as well be urged in reference to the majority who could use the power to crush debate.— The fact was, that if the argument be good for any thing, it was good against the rule, and much better than in favor of it. It was only right that the minority in all deliberative bodies should be allowed to express their sentiments at length, and it was a maxim that those who have the power may feel an inclination to abuse it, for it begets in itself a spirit somewhat wanton, unjust, and oppressive. Men may feel power, and forget right. And that was one reason why greater latitude of debate was allowed in committee of the whole. A gentleman in the course of the present debate had observed that if the minority were disposed to procrastinate the business, that it was the right of the majority to call for the previous question, Now, he (Mr. F.) would ask if it was fair to assume that they would do so? Was it not equally fair to suppose that the majority would use their power for the purpose of stifling debate. The gentleman from Mifflin (Mr. BANKS) had remarked that no one in this body would crush debate. Let every gentleman here personally speak for himself. With regard to himself, he would frankly say that he had no apprehensions as to the operation of the rule. But, he would inquire

what extraordinary necessity there was for the previous question in a body of this character? For himself, he could not see any thing here which called for so extraordinary a remedy. No case, in his opinion, had yet occured, which called for it. The minority, it was true, had a right to be heard: but, he did not believe that any question would arise where the line of party would be distinctly drawn. No, not one, and therefore he saw no use in the rule. It might happen that on a pending subject-one man, after little consideration, would be satisfied and ready to vote-whilst another's mind was not made up. One or more gentlemen might come here ready to vote, without hearing any discussion, and should there happen to be a majority in favor of taking the question, the minority would be cut off by springing the previous question. It was in accordance with the spirit and character of our institutions that there should be freejdiscussion, even although the party desiring more discussion. might be in the wrong. Could it be supposed that the minority would indulge the hope of defeating a question, simply by procrastinating the decision? He could not assume it before hand. He was, for that reason, opposed to calling the previous question. Why, if it was intended to cut off all debate, it would be better to say that we would decide without discussion. There was no danger, he apprehended, of a tedious waste of time here. He regarded the calling of the previous question in committee of the whole as a breach of the freedom of discussion.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, trusted that the resolution would not be rescinded. He was sorry to differ on this occasion, from the gentleman from Allegheny, for whom he entertained the highest respect, but duty compelled him to view the matter in a different light. The rule was adopted to serve some purpose, and he thought that every gentleman knew what that was. It was not, then, adopted in order to cut off useful debate, and which might have a tendency to bring the body to a proper and correct decision. The real object of it was to arrest useless discussion upon questions which had already been fully examined and argued. An instance of that kind in regard to the fourth article of the Constitution, which was debated for ten or twelve days, and almost every me:nber made speeches on subjects concerning which there was no differ-nce of opinion. There was no getting the speaker off the floor until the hour of adjournment arrived. The gentleman (Mr. FORWARD) had said that the majority would call the previous question, and consequently deprive the minority of an opportunity of discussion. Now, he (Mr. FULLER) would say that if that was to be the course which the majority would pursue, then there would be some plausibility in the objection to the calling of the previous question. But had that been done already? He thought not. The previous question had not been called until the subject then under consideration, had been fully discussed. Could the previous question be called unless there was a majority to sustain the call? Decidedly not. And, he did not believe that the minority would say that the majority had acted illiberally. When the previous question was called the other day and sustained, but few gentlemen complained. He apprehended that the question which had been discussed near a week had given every gentleman an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on it. Some gentleman had even spoken three times. In his opinion there was a waste of time, for many things which were then said was a mere reiteration of what had been previously ex