The CHAIR: If the gentleman appeals he may, and proceed with his remarks, but not without.

Mr. STERIGERE said, he would move that the question be taken on the amendment before the Chair, divided in the way he had already proposed.

The CHAIR has decided that the gentleman is not in order.

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, moved that the committee rise.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester: I hope the gentleman will not persist in his motion.

Mr. DUNLOP persisted.

The question being taken on the amendment, it was negatived.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said he would vote against the amendment as amended, because it contained the tax qualification.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, asked if it would be in order to renew the motion to amend which he made some days ago, to allow all to vote, except drunkards, lunatics, &c. ?

The CHAIR said it would not, and the Chair had so decided before.

Mr. DUNLOP asked if it would be in order to hurrah for the old Constitution?

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, hoped that the amendment would be somewhat modified, and then on second reading he would vote for it.

Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia, said, he hoped the friends of reform would be convinced by the vote upon this question, that nothing was to be gained by joining with those who were opposed to any reform; and, if they intended to carry alterations, let them act with each other.

Mr. DARLINGTON protested against making appeals of that sort. However, as the friends of reform were again called to the rally, he would say to the friends of judicious reform, that he hoped they would hold on to this amendment, until they could get something better.

Mr. M'CAHEN replied, that the gentleman need not undertake to chide him, as he had fallen into the same error himself. He had appealed to his own party to stand by his amendment.

The question being taken, it was decided in the negative-yeas, 54; nays, 55-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barndollar, Bayne, Biddle, Brown, of Northampton, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Darlington, Denny, Dickerson, Forward, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Sill, Snively, Swetland, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, Presi dent-54.

NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cox, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dickey, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hyde, Kennedy, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White-55.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend the report of the committee, by striking from the second line the words "one year", and inserting

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved that the committee rise, which was decided in the affirmative-ayes 60.

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

The Convention adjourned.

Mr. SELLERS, of Montgomery, presented a memorial of citizens of Montgomery county, praying for Constitutional restrictions in relation to Banks, which was laid on the table.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Mercer, submited the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:

WHEREAS, a respectable number of this Convention appear to be opposed to any amendment or alteration in the Constitution, and as it is uncertain whether a majority of the Convention are not of that opinion, and as it would be a useless waste of time and money for this Convention to continue any longer in session, if it is found that a majo rity are opposed to making any alteration in the Constitution; and as a further evidence that there is a strong opposition to any alteration, we have only to refer to the vote of yesterday, to find that a majority cannot agree on amendments, as we have negatived all that we have done from the 19th instant up to the present moment: Therefore, in order to ascertain the sense of the Convention on that subject, Resolved, That this Convention will, on Thursday next, resolve itself into a committee of the whole, to take into consideration whether it is expedient or proper to make any alteration or amendment in the Constitution; and that the question be decided by yeas and nays, and that no member shall be permitted to speak more than once, unless otherwise ordered by the committee.

Mr. COPE, from the committee on accounts, presented a resolution, which was agreed to.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, rose to submit a proposition. It appeared to him, that the course pursued by the committee during the last few days, proved that no further benefit could be reasonably expected from discussion. He thought any further consideration or discussion of the third article, in committee of the whole, would be a mere waste of time, and he therefore moved the following order. Ordered, That the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the third article.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, expressed his hope, that the committee would not be discharged, though the vote yesterday, rejecting the amendment, was unexpected, he thought it would be as well to go on. If the committee should be discharged, we should have to take the article up again. Mr. STERIGERE said, his reasons were simply these. The result of the last weeks proceedings must have satisfied us that we may lose another week on the same discussion. All the benefits to be derived from discussion in committee of the whole have been obtained, and he asked to discharge the commttee entirely, and to proceed to other subjects.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said, the gentleman from Montgomery was mistaken about all the benefits of discussion having been obtained. My

amendment has not yet been decided, (said Mr. R.) and many others have not yet been offered. He had notyet reached the place where he proposed to make his amendment.

Mr. STERIGERE: The gentleman could have offered it twenty times. Mr. READ: I could not, because I could find no proper place.

Mr. KERR, of Washington, hoped the motion would prevail-not that he was tired of his station in the Chair of the committee. But, as the committee had negatived all that had been previously done, time would now be saved by discharging the committee, and permiting the whole article to lie over until the second reading.

Mr. DARLINGTON of Chester, asked how the question would come up on second reading, if the committee were now discharged? Would it come up on the report of the committee of the whole, or on the original article? Mr. BROWN said, he had offered an amendment last night, for the purpose of taking the sense of the committee without debate. If we take the tax principle and the six months residence, the question would lie between the tax principle and the report of the committee. He was willing to accept the tax qualification and a residence of six months. The subject had been debated in all forms, and it seemed that nothing was to be done until the second reading. He would admit, and the history of the last few days would prove the correctness of the reference, to the propriety of yielding some of our peculiar and personal feelings and opinions. It was evident, that the disposition to alter the right of suffrage, by extending it, was unanimous, but the question was, what should be done? The proper way to get at an accurate result was by averaging opinions. Who is for, and who against the tax qualification? We ought to look at all the propositions in a body, and take that which is the sense of the committee.He hoped we should give up some of our opinions. He was willing to give up some of his, and to leave it to the people. He made his proposition yesterday in the spirit of conciliation, to satisfy the average opinion of the Convention and the people. He was not disposed to waste time in building up what must be pulled down again, but would wish to make such a fabric as would stand for ever. He called on all those who thought the Constitution ought to be amended, to yield some of their peculiar opinions, and by sacrificing some personal feeling to obtain some public good. Mr. BAYNE, of Allegheny, was in favor of the order. The propositions already presented in committee, would perhaps be offered again in a varied form. Would they be more or less acceptable? They could not be offered in the same express shape; and, by varying them, the proposition would not be the same. The proposition on which the vote was last taken, had been negatived by a large majority, and no possible good could result from agitating the whole subject again. On the second reading, amendments might be offered in the same words, and they might then be adopted or rejected. We ought to discharge the committee, because, so far as we have gone, we have built up something large and comprehensive in its appearance, and then thrown it over. The confusion was owing to the want of a proper basis to go on, from taking the report instead of the article. He knew of three or four propositions which would be brought forandward, would probably consume the day, if the committee were to sit again.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, thought there would be a great deal of

tions which would be offered, might all be disposed of to day. He asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, hoped the committee would be discharged. The gentleman from Northampton had a motion to bring forward, and other gentlemen had their propositions. There were several new amendments to be offered, involving the same principle. He thought we should be better prepared to consider them after some delay, and that we ought now to go on to the other articles.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, hoped the committee would not be discharged. It was not to be expected, that one hundred and thirty-three members would come to a conclusion at a jump. From the conflict of opinions light is elicited. It is only after the discussion that we can reach a proper conclusion, and after a great deal of discussion, we had now got back to the starting point. We now understand each other's views. The friends

of reforın are disposed to concede a little. This has been a capital manœuvre of the conservatives, and he was surprised to see the gentleman from Montgomery figuring in it, although he ought not to have been surprised, if he had looked at the votes of that gentleman from the commencement. If he had not known the gentleman to be a democrat, he should have supposed him to be a conservative.

The CHAIR called the gentleman to order for being too personal in his allusions.

Mr. CLARKE resumed: He was surprised that the motion should have been made. He hoped all parties would agree not to agree to this motion. Let us go into committee; every gentleman's mind is made up, and we can vote down what we do not like. If we can agree on nothing, be it so. He hoped the motion would not prevail, but that the Convention would go into committee again. The gentleman from Susquehanna had not yet been able to get his views before the committee. Ought he not to have such an opportunity? He hoped the motion would not be agreed to. There was, as yet, plenty of room for discussion. We shall find enough to do on the second reading, to trim our propositions and put them in a good shape, and he would not be willing to leave it to that time to settle the principle. We should settle the principle first. He had a letter in his drawer from a respectable person, who requested that we would stick to the subject till we had got through, and this was what their constituents expected. He hoped that we should go on in the Convention.

Mr. DARLINGTON would vote for the motion, unless it was a contravention of the 40th rule. This difficulty solved, he would go for it. Mr. D. then read the 40th rule, which is as follows: "If the committees report that no amendment is necessary in an article, the report shall be considered, first in committee of the whole, and again on second reading. Amendments may be offered, either in committee of the whole or on second reading, whether the committee shall have reported amendments or not, and no amendment shall be agreed to in committee of the whole or on second reading, the existing Constitutional provision shall stand". As no rule could be dispensed with, without a vote of two thirds, he thought the motion was not in order.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, was for coming up to the work-for

be decided without much debate. There had been a great deal of discussion, and it had not been without instruction. He would submit his amendment without debate, and if other gentlemen would do the same, there was no reason why we should not get through the article in committee of the whole to-day.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, was at first in favor of the proposition, because he was sick of the idea of going through the whole business again. But, on reflection, he had changed his opinion. The whole discussion is now fresh in our minds, and, if we can take the questions without debate, we can speedily get through. It may be next spring before we can get through, if the committee should now be discharged. We may call the previous question, if we become weary of the debate.Perhaps, in the course of to-day, we may agree on something.

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, was also opposed to discharging the committee, although he was not unwilling to suspend, for a few days, the action on this article. He did not think, however, that we should have much discussion. He hoped there would be found a disposition in gentlemen to yield their personal opinions, as was suggested by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. BROWN) and he was glad to hear the suggestion from that gentleman. He had voted for the proposition of the gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. CLARKE) fixing the residence at ten days, in the spirit of conciliation. He hoped we should now reach the conclusion of the debate on this article, without more delay.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, hoped the committee would not be discharged. There had been, as yet, no definite action. Gentlemen talk about time. He did not know that any time had been wasted. Caution is especially required of us. We are not like the Legislature, where the errors commited at one end of the House can be corrected by the body at the other end. We shall be held culpable, if we let any proposition pass without care, examination, and debate, so that nothing may be wrong.

Mr. STERIGERE said he disliked the denunciations of his friend from Indiana on his left (Mr. CLARKE.) He valued the good opinion of that gentleman, and, therefore, was desirous to say a word in reply. On all questions but one, he (Mr. S.) had gone in faver of all propositions of reasonable reform, so far as he understood them. He called on the gentleman to name any instance in which he had not done so. Except the proposition to admit to the right of voting, every negro, vagrant, or conviet, he had gone in favor of every reform. He deprecated denunciation from such a quarter. He thought the course we were pursuing, in going back into committee, was very like boys' play. Every one is complaining of the tardiness of the debate, and all wishing to go into it again. He was disposed to withdraw his proposition.

Mr. STERIGERE then withdrew his motion.

THIRD ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into committee of the whole on the third article of the Constitution, Mr. KERR, of Washington, in the Chair.

The question pending, being on the motion of Mr. BROWN, of Phila delphia, to amend the report by striking out the words "one year", and