tives be chosen by the citizens of each county, one person shall be chosen for each office who shall be commissioned by the Governor; they shall hold their offices for three years, if they shall so long behave themselves well, and until a successor be duly qualified, but no person shall be twice chosen or appointed Sheriff in any term of six years. Vacancies in either of said offices shall be filled by a new appointment, to be made by the Governor, to continue until the next general election, and until a successor shall be chosen and qualified as aforesaid.

Add a new section, to be called section six, as follows:

SECTION 6. Prothonotaries and Clerks of the several courts, (except the Prothonotaries of the Supreme Court, who shall be appointed in the respective districts by the court, for the term of three years, if they shall so long behave themselves well, and are not removed by the court) Recorder's of deeds and Register's of wills shall, at the times and places of election of representatives, be elected by the citizens of each county or the districts over which the jurisdiction of said courts extends, and shall be commissioned by the Governor; they shall hold their offices for three years, if they shall so long behave themselves well, and until their successors shall be duly qualified. The Legislature shall designate, by law, the number of persons in each county who shall hold said offices, and how many, and which of said offices shall be held by one person. Vacancies in any of the said offices shall be filled by an appointment, to be made by the Governor, to continue until the next general election, and until a successor shall be elected and qualified as aforesaid.

Add a new section to be called section seven, as follows:

SECTION 7. Justices of the Peace, and Aldermen, shall be elected by the citizens of the several districts, at the times and piaces of electing constables, and hold their office for five years, if they so long behave themselves well, the number in each district to be fixed by the Legislature.

Add a new article, to be called article ten, as follows:

ARTICLE X.

SECTION 1. The public debt of this Commouwealth shall never exceed the sum of thirty millions of dollars.

ARTICLE XI.

SECTION 1. Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or Assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two Houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall cause the same to be published, as soon as practicable, in at least one newspaper in every county in which a newspaper shall be published, and if in the Legislature next afterwards chosen, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by two thirds of all the members elected to each House, the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall cause the same again to be published in manner aforesaid, and such proposed amendment or amendments shall be submited to the people, at such time at least three months distant, and in such manner as the Legislature shall prescribe; and, if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the qualified voters of this State who shall vote thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the Constitution.

Resolved, That this Convention will now adjourn sine die.

Mr. SHELLITO, of Crawford, suggested, that this be called the Adams. County Constitution.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, moved that the Convention proceed to the consideration of the following resolution, offered by him yesterday. Resolved, That the resolution passed on the twelfth instant, rescinding so much of the twenty-third rule, as forbids the previous question in committee of the whole, be res cinded.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, asked for the yeas and nays on this motion, and they were ordered accordingly.

The question was taken on considering the motion, and determined—

YEAS.-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancas. ter, Carey. Chambers, Candler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver. Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana. Co tes, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson. Donnel, Doran, Daalop, Fleming, Forward, Gamble, Helffe stein. Hen lerson, of Allegheny, Hen lerson, of Dauphin. Hopkinson Houpt. Jenks, Kerr. Knigmacher, Long Milav, M'Cill, M’Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel. Pollock Porter, of Lancaster, Rei part. Rtr. Rover, Russell, Sieger, Scott. Sterigere, Stevens, Thom is, Told, Weidman, Waite, Yo ing, Sergeant, President—61. NAYS.--Msr. Ayres, Banks, Bayne, Big lov, Bɔ'm, Bown, of Northamton, Brown, of Phila lelphia Clevinger, Craig, Crain Crum. Cummin. Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donga, Earle, Farrelly, Foulkro 1. Fry, Fulle, Garhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhu st. Hiester, Hyde, Keim. Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, Miller, Montgom rv, Myers, Ove field, Porter, of No thinpton. Purviance, Real, Ritter, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shelito, S., Smith, S.nyth, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward--55.

The resolution having been read a second time,

Mr. MEREDITH said, he would not have brought this resolution forward, but that he considered, that the resolution to rescind the rule forbidding the previous question in committee of the whole, was not adopted by the sense of the Convention; not even had the yeas and nays been asked for on the question, an if they had been called, he believed the resolution would not have been adopted. It was a measure altogether unprecedented. The object of carrying measures into committee of the whole, was for the purpose of having full and free discussion and amendment. There was a inode of discharging the committee of the whole from the further consideration of the subject, when debate was not desired. To test the sense of the Convention, he asked for the yeas and nays on his motion, and they were ordered accordingly.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said, the principal objection seemed to be that the rule establishing the previous question in committee of the whole, was an unprecedented one, and that the previous question had never been used in committee of the whole in any other body. Well, there was a good reason for using it in this body, which did not exist as to any other body. In other bodies, the proceedings in committee of the whole. were altogether preliminary, but such was not the case here. An unprecedented practise as to the previous question might be introduced here, because our course of proceeding was unprecedented. Here the great battle was fought, and the important principles were settled in committee of the whole. What was the meaning of the rule every where? To enable a decided majority to control the minority. We had an instance yesterday. The main question was ordered to be taken by a vote of 102 to 13. Yet, had it not been for this rule, this small minority might have kept up the discussion for weeks. In a body like this, where we settle all great questions in committee of the whole, there was some reason for introducing the rule, and there should be strong reasons for a change. Let us rescind the rule, and any six members of this body, in committee of the whole, can prevent the action of the other one hundred and twenty-seven, not only for a month, but for years. But the gentleman from the city told us there was another mode of getting rid of debate, and this was by discharging the committee of the whole and for what purpose? To get the advantage of the previous question in the committee. What is the effect? It is all-satisfactory to the gentleman from the city. You have moved amendments to

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 adoptel, 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 forght. It was not the custom to call the yeas and nays in committee of the who'e, 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 gentlem in 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 rescinde 1, 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 con nittee 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 amen lments 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 Convention 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 committee 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.

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 preceding 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 gentleman only finds this evil in his own imgination. Mr. M. concluded with 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 25th 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

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 intended 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