with them, and after we have acted, then they will take the subject under consideration, and adopt or reject it. He could not say, that he was so anxious for an adjournment himself, because he could arrange his business so as to remain here, but, he thought it important that we should determine whether we will take a recess, or go on and finish our business. He thought, however, the healths of gentlemen ought to be taken into consideration, in connexion with the public interests. It was certainly important, that every member of the Convention should be present when all the important votes were taken, and it was also important that they should be present during the discussion of all questions, so as to be able to come to a correct conclusion. It was not expected, however, that all the delegates could be present, if we remain in session during the months of July and August. Many would be confined to their rooms from indisposition, and many would be compelled to leave the Convention, to attend to their private business. All our important votes, therefore, would have to be taken when there would be some twenty or thirty members of the Convention absent. This he took to be an important consideration, and he hoped it would have its full weight with gentlemen.

He was not willing to continue to sit here and deliberate until we should have completed our labors, in the absence of twenty, or thirty, or forty members. Did any gentlemen believe that the people of Pennsylvania desired such a thing? They could not expect it. It was said that this climate was insalubrious, and that the summer months would render our daily sessions the shorter. Now, it was perfectly clear, that if we sat here in July and August, we must give up the afternoon sessions. We could not sit here, except at the imminent peril of our health. Was it better to wait till there should be thirty or forty of us on the sick list, ⚫ before we decide what course we should adopt? It was a question of probability, whether our health might be jeoparded by remaining here.If it was not likely to be injured, then what excuse had we for adjourning at all? If it be probable, then what excuse could a man have for remaining here. Was it to be said that the people required it, as they would of a soldier who went to battle, regardless of his life? The public required no such thing. It was our duty to adjourn, if there were danger. He, for one, was willing to go home, and tell the people that he deemed it proper that we should adjourn-first, on account of his own health, and next, because, from the absence of a number of the delegates, their interests would have been neglected. These were the reasons which he would assign to his constituents for having voted for the adjournment. Now, he would ask, if it was possible that members, fatigued, and almost worn out, as they were from constant and close attention to business, together with the heat of the weather, could deliberate in that cool and advantageous manner as in the winter months, or in the month of November? Could the people be served by the Convention sitting under such circumstances? Did gentlemen suppose that their afternoon sessions were to continue? That members were going to sit here sinking under the head ache, and other infirmities? It was in vain to think of it. What do we hear (said Mr. F.) on all sides? I have got the head ache, said one. I am sick, said another. I cannot go to the House to-day. And, others would ask leave of absence. Why, what were you expected to do? Did the people

weighed, as a grain of gold, were to hurry through our labors, as fast as possible, in order to submit our work to them? No such thing. The people did not care a straw, whether the amendments should be submited for their inspection this summer, or not. The Constitution would not take effect any the sooner. Let gentlemen charge no mileage going or returning, and the people would be satisfied--not a murmur would be

heard.

He would say a word or two in relation to the progress of our business. Of what moment, he would ask, was it that we should go through committee of the whole, with all the articles? Now, he would as soon adjourn to-morrow, or to-day. It was no reason why we should remain here.Was that a good and sufficient reason why we should prolong our stay, and put our health in jeopardy? Nene at all. Was there, then, any other reason that could be assigned why we should remain? None, whatever. If we could not stay here with advantage to the public interest, why, go home. It was not a question whether we should go through committee of the whole, or not, It had nothing to do with it. But, some gentlenen have said, that the people would not be satisfied if we went home, unless we could shew all our amendments to them? Never mind that. The people cared nothing about it. They were less concerned than many gentlemen imagine. Certain things are expected from the Convention, and the people were not solicitous that their delegates should have them in their pockets. Tell them that their interests could not be attended to, without peril to the health of their delegates, and they would not be so unreasoble as to expect them to sacrifice it.

If the Convention should agree to adjourn, he hoped that they would fix an early day, and then gentlemen could tell their constituents the reason why we adjourned.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, concured in all the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. FORWARD) except one. and that was in relation to mileage. He did not believe that the people would regard the trifling expense of double mileage, in their estimate of the value of our work. He thought it would be better to change the day of adjournment, from the 7th to the 15th, as by that time, the Judiciary question may be disposed of.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, called for the reading of the resolution, and it having been read, he said, that in regard to this question, as well as to every other which had been discussed here, he had listened patiently and anxiously, in the hope that the Convention would come to a right conclusion. Before his constituents sent him here, he was not asked by them, whether he would agree to sit until all the work was done, or only a part of it. But this he knew, the people expected him to do his duty. He well remembered the motto, where it originated, and the occasion on which it was uttered, of "England expects every man to do his duty". That sentiment was quite applicable, as respected ourselves-the people of Pennsylvania expect every member of this Convention to do his duty.Now, he would ask, if we should be acting in the faithful discharge of our duty, to adjourn on the 15th of July, to meet again at another place?Let every man's mind answer for itself. In his opinion, we should not. With regard to the expense of an adjournment, he would say, that the gentleman from Allegheny was wholly mistaken as to the sense of the

people. No one ever thought of connecting considerations of dollars and cents with this question, until the gentleman suggested them. He would ask, whether it would be fair to entail the expense of mileage upon gentlemen coming a great distance-ficm Fayette, Greene, Eric, and other northern counties, who had been sitting here and faithfully attending to their duties? He thought it would not. For himself, he might say that he was as anxious to go home as any gentleman present, but he did not wish to go until he had discharged his duty. It was singular that the question of adjournment was again brought up, after being only the other day indefinitely postponed. He was sorry to see it again pressed upon us, at any rate, before the Constitution had been disposed of in comm ttee of the whole. He regarded the frequent agitation of this question, asicalculated to induce the people to think that we are wasting and trifling a way our time. He trusted that gentlemen would keep in view the business they were met here to dispose of, and let questions of adjournment alone. He was opposed to an adjournment, and should therefore vote against the resolution.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, withdrew his motion to amend the resolution.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved to amend the resolution, by striking out this place" and inserting "Easton", which was negatived. Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, moved to strike out this place" and insert Wilkesbarre", which was negatived.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, moved to strike out "this place" and insert "Philadelphia".

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, intimated, that we did not know whether, if we went to Philadelphia, we could get a building in which to meet.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, did not suppose that there would be the slightest doubt about accommodating us in Philadelphia, abounding, as it does, in fine and spacious buildings.

Mr. M'CALL asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said, that he would vote against any adjournment. He believed the Convention could finish their business in nine weeks from this time. A calculation had been entered into, that a certain number of speeches were to be made. They might, then, be as well made at this time, as at any other. He did not believe, if an adjournment were to take place, that the people would care any thing about paying our mileage. He believed Harrisburg to be as healthy a place as any in this part of the country, and that no danger was to be apprehended as respected the health of members. But, "sufficient for the day was the evil thereof". The gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. FORWARD) had remarked, that gentlemen had complained of having the headache, and being otherwise indisposed. In all large bodies-and, it was the case in reference to the Legislature, there were always some more or less indisposed. Some men, too, brought sickness upon themselves frequently, by their indiscretion.He hoped we should go on, and, at least get through committee-after which, we should have little difficulty. But, if we did adjourn, he was in favor of meeting at Harrisburg.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, said, that he would vote for meeting here on the 17th of October.

the gentleman frow Chester, (Mr. BELL.) It would afford great pleasure to himself, his colleagues, and the citizens of Philadelphia, to extend the hospitalities of that city to their friends of the Convention.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM, of Mercer, remarked, that he prefered Philadelphia to any place of meeting, except Harrisburg.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said, that he had no doubt of the hospitality of the citizens of Philadelphia, and that they would evince it towards the members of this Convention, if they were to go to that city. Now, this was the very reason why he should vote against the amendment. That hospitality would have the effect, he was afraid, to retard and interfere with our business. It was, on this account, according to tradition, that the seat of the State Government was removed from that city to Lan

caster.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, could not agree with his worthy friend from Indiana, as to the effects of that hospitality which he appeared to dread. He had known the people of Philadelphia, and lived among them

in days of lang syne," although he was not a native of that city. He was in the habit of visiting it at least twice a year on professional business, and at other seasons as business or pleasure required. He had, it was true, been treated with great kindness and hospitality as would every other respectable stranger who visited it and became known. He was not afraid to go there, nor need any other man. He had heard the removal of the seat of Government from Philadelphia to Lancaster attributed to fears entertained by the members of the Legislature that the easiest way to their judgments might be down their throats, but he did not know what foundation there was for it. But he had heard also of the failure of an experiment of that kind which took place at Lancaster. The late Col. FRANCIS JOHNSTON, a meritorious revolutionary officer, held the office of Receiver General, and was desirous with the rest of the heads of department to have his salary, which he considered too low, raised.-To effect this he invited a member from one of the western counties to dine with him. This gentleman was supposed to be one of the stiffest economists in the house and if he were brought over, others could be more easily induced to follow After plying him with roast beef and pudding, with their usual accompani ments, a few good glasses of wine and a good segar, the Colonel broached the subject to him, telling him he saw how he lived. That he liked to see a friend and enjoy his society &c., but that his salary would not permit him to do so. And that unless the Legislature raised his salary he must resign, unwilling as he was to do so. The member made little or no answer although the proposition was repeated more than once. At length when he was about to retire with his skin full of good things, he remarked to the Colouel, "Well, Colonel, you are a very clever man, and a good officer, and I should be sorry to lose you, but if you do resign I judge that there will be enough to take it". And this was all he got for his dinner and wine. And such would most generally be the result. He (Mr. P.) liked to see and partake of hospitality. He had no objection to a glass of wine on proper occasions; but, he did not see why a man's judg ment should, on that account, become biased, or that a man should permit his public duties to be interfered with. He, to be sure, had not as great a stock of infallibility as some men, but, nevertheless, he was

And he

interfered with He saw no more danger to be apprehended in going to Philadelphia than in coming to this place. He felt sure, that his worthy and excellent friend from Indiana, (Mr. CLARKE) could not be seduced from his path of duty; he was made of too stern stuff for that. (Mr. P.) might make the same remark as to the Convention generally. The question was taken on the amendment, and decided in the negative -yeas, 39; nays, 66—as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Coates, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Darlington, Denny, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Fleming, Foulkrod, Grenell, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kennedy, Long, Lyons, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Merrill, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Scott, White, Sergeant, President -39.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bedford, Brown, of Lan aster, Brown, of Northampton, Butler, Chambers, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Crain, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Earle, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gamble. Gearhart, Gilmore, Hastings. Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin. Hiester, Hyde, Kerr, Maclay, Magee, M'Call, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Saeger, Sellers, Seltzer, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Snively, Sterigere, Swetland, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Woodward-66.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, thought, that if the resolution was to be adopted, it would be as well to put it in a proper shape first. As it now stood, it provided that the Convention should adjourn on the 7th of July, if all the articles of the Constitution shall have been passed through the committee of the whole, on that day. Now, he would ask any gentleman, whether it was at all likely that the Judiciary question, and the Bill of Rights, which was of as great importance as any thing which had, as yet, been under consideration, could be disposed of by that time. Although we had been in session seven weeks, we had got only about half through committee. It amounted to nothing, to say that we adjourn on such a day, if we had done so and so. In order to make the language of the resolution specific, he would move to strike out the proviso, which is as follows: "Provided all the articles of the Constitution shall be passed through the committee of the whole, on that day".

Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, then modified his resolution, by striking out the proviso.

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, moved to amend the resolution by adding, after the word "adjourn", the words, "so soon as the several articles of the Constitution shall have been passed through committee of the whole".

Mr. W. observed, that there appeared to be a diversity of opinion among gentlemen, as to whether we could get through committee of the whole by the 15th of July. He was not prepared to say that we should get through by that time. But fixing the day, would have the effect of making us push on wi h business the faster. He thought it very important and desirable, that we should have gone through committee of the whole before adjourning, because, an opportunity would be afforded us of reflecting what further amendments were necessary to be made, when we should meet again. At which time, we could give to the amendments already agreed to, their proper form and shape, and put them in the Con stitution, to as to prevent objection. Besides, it was right that before we