Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, hoped the amendment would not be adopt. ed.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, also moved to postpone for the present. After a few words from Messrs. KONIGMACHER, DARLINGTON, CHANDLER, and CURll,

Mr. GAMBLE, of Lycoming, asked for the yeas and nays, on the motion to postpone.

And the question being taken, was decided in the negative.

YEAS-Messrs. Ayres, Banks, Barnitz, Bell, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Cline, Coates, Cope, Cox, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Donnell, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Long, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Russell, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Stickel, Taggart, White-48.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cochran, Crain, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Gamble, Grenell, Harris, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Hyde, Konigmacher, Krebs, Lyons, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel. Montgomery, Nevin, Pennypacker, Purviance, Reigart, Ritter, Saeger, Serrill, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-60.

The question then recurred on agreeing to the motion to strike out three thousand, and insert six thousand:

Which was negatived.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, asked for a division of the question.
The CHAIR said, the question was not divisible.

Mr. DARLINGTON then moved to strike out the words "and three thou. sand copies in German." He wanted no German copies.

Mr. HIESTER observed, that there were others that did.

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, asked for the yeas and nays. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, was in favor of printing three thousand copies in German.

[Here Mr. FULLER asked leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. Cleavinger, of Greene county, during the remainder of the session, which was granted.]

The hour set apart by rule for the consideration of resolutions, reports, &c. having now expired,

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, moved to dispense with the rule:
Which was agreed to.

Mr. SMYTH then expressed his hope, that the motion of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Darlington) would not prevail.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, opposed the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. FLEMING, of Lycoming, was against the printing, and offered to modify the resolution.

The debate was continued by Messrs. HIESTER, FLEMING, and FULLER, when

Mr. READ demanded the previous question.

Which said motion was seconded by the requisite number of delegates rising in their places.

And the question being taken,

Shall the main question be now put?

It was determined in the affirmative.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the said resolution?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, and Mr. FULLER, and are as follow, viz:

YEA Messrs. Banks, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey, Chauncey, Clapp, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Grenell, Hastings, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, Meredith, Merkel, Miller, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Pennypacker, Porter, of Northampton, Ritter, Rogers, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Weaver, Weidman, Woodward-78.

NATS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Barndollar, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Beaver, Cope, Cox, Crum, Dickey, Dunlop, Fleming, Forward, Gearhart, Gilmore, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, High, Hopkinson, Maclay, M3Sherry, Merrill, Montgomery, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Royer, Russell, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Stevens, Todd, White, Young, Sergeant, President-39. So the resolution was agreed to.

The question then recurring on the adoption of the second resolution,

The same was modified by Mr. CURLL, to read as follows, viz: Resolved, That the expense of said printing, and all other expenses incident thereto, be settled and adjusted by the accounting officers of this commonwealth.

And the second resolution, as thus modified, was agreed to.

The convention then resumed the second reading of the report of the committee appointed to prepare and report a schedule to the amended constitution.

The question recurring on the amendment to the amendment to the seventh section of said report, in the words as follows, viz:

"The president judges of the several judicial districts of this commonwealth, and the associate judges of the first judicial district, shall continue to hold their respective offices for the term of ten years, and the other associate judges for the term of five years, from and after the adoption of the amendments to the constitution, if they shall so long behave themselves well."

A point of order was raised by Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, as to whether it would be in order to move to reconsider, at this time, the vote heretofore given on the antecedent section, (No. 6.)

The PRESIDENT decided that that motion would not be in order, until the pending question is decided; or, that a motion now made to reconsider would require a vote of two-thirds.

A long debate followed on the point of order. After which

A motion was made by Mr. EARLE, seconded by Mr. BROWN, of Northampton, both of whom had voted in the majority on the said antecedent section:

That the further consideration of the said amendment to the amendment, be postponed for the present, in order to proceed to the reconsideration of the sixth section of said report, in the words as follow, viz :

"The judges of the supreme court who shall be in commission at the time of the adoption of the amendments to this constitution, shall hold their offices for the term of fifteen years thereafter, if so long they shall behave themselves well."

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the motion?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. BELL and Mr. STERIgere, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Ayres, Banks, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northamp ton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Indiana, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Earle, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Purviance, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward, Young-67.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Donagan, Doran, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Sergeant, President-57.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, moved to reconsider the vote on the section adopted on Saturday, extending the term of the judges of the supreme court now in commission, to fifteen years from the time of the adoption of the amended constitution.

MI. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, hoped that the motion would prevail; and if it should, he would move to amend the section, so as to make it read as follows:

"The commissions of the judges of the supreme court, who may be in office on the first day of January next, shall expire in the following manner: The commission which bears the earliest date shall expire on the first day of January, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two; the commission next dated, shall expire on the first day of January, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five; the commission next dated shall expire on the first day of January, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight; the commission next dated shall expire on the first day of January, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one; and, the commission last dated shall expire on the first day of January, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four."

Mr. PAYNE, of M'Kean county, observed that he was in favor of recon

sidering the vote taken on Saturday last, because he was under the impression that there had not been given to the subject, that thought and consideration to which it was entitled.

He had voted for the amendment, notwithstanding it seemed somewhat to militate against the report of the minority of the committee on the schedule, which he had signed. His belief was, that he would represent the wishes of his constituents, if he did not give a vote that would disturb the judges of the supreme court, at least those of them who were qualified to the performance of their duties.

He admitted that he was not for carrying out the same principle in reference to the other judges. He had no doubt, if the supreme court judges were as popular in other parts of the state as in his own, that, should they happen to be turned out to-day, they would be reinstated to-morrow. He was well aware that we had some judges on the bench, who ought not to be there, as they were unfit, on many accounts, for the proper discharge of their duties.

It was not his intention to apply these remarks to the supreme court, but to the other courts. His desire, then, was to apply a remedy to the disease to remove the evils existing, and not to destroy or annihilate that which was really good in itself, and worth retaining.

He had seconded the motion to reconsider, because he was desirous of having the subject more fully considered and discussed than it had been. At present, he was not prepared to say how he would vote. There still reniained ample time to deliberate, and he trusted that gentlemen would embrace the opportunity of giving their views at length.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, expressed his astonishment that such a motion should have been made, and that, too, by a gentleman of the party who had, on Saturday last, put an end to the debate, and closed the mouths of those who desired to give their views on this important question. Gentlemen having found the decision to be contrary to their expec. tations now wished to procure a reconsideration of the vote. Why had they forced the question to a decision? Because, doubtless, they conceived they had a majority. They seemed to forget the ordinary courtesies that were due to gentlemen in debate. The previous question had not been called, to be sure, but the immediate question was, and that put an end to further discussion. He trusted that some good reason would be assigned why we should undo that which was done on Saturday.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, was free to acknowledge that he had done wrong in moving the immediate question; but if the gentleman would excuse him this time, he would not do so again. In future, he would leave the moving of the immediate question to those who were more experienced than himself. That was the only occasion on which he had done it. The reason why the motion to reconsider had been made, was to give those gentlemen, whose minds were not altogether satisfied, an opportunity for further consideration, so that they might come to a more satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. MEREDITH asked what motive the gentleman had in desiring a reconsideration?

Mr. BROWN replied, that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Earle) and the gentleman from M'Kean, (Mr. Payne) having

felt themselves dissatisfied with the votes which they had given, without sufficient reflection and consideration, had induced him (Mr. B.) to move a reconsideration. Besides, too, he did not like to have it supposed that he wished to force a member to vote, before he was prepared.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, observed that when he offered his amendment on Saturday, he entertained no idea that it would be so soon disposed of, or that the debate on it was to be curtailed as it had been by the agency of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown.) He, doubtless, thought that a majority would not have been found in favor of the amendment. No doubt the gentleman does regret that he was obliged to call the immediate question, before he had got his force marshalled and every thing arranged calculated to effect the object he had in view. He (Mr. Porter) had offered the amendment from a belief that it was essestial to the preservation of the courts in their purity and impartiality. He regarded the principle of the amendment as of great importance to the people of Pennsylvania. He desired, if possible, that there should be something like order and symmetry introduced into the constitution in regard to the various departments of the government therein treated of. He desired, too, that if this convention had settled any principle in reference to regulating the manner in which the new constitution should go into effect, it should be adhered to.

What, he asked, had we settled with respect to the judiciary, as set forth in the schedule? Why, that the judge of the supreme court shall hold their seats so long as they behave themselves well.

What did gentlemen mean to do with the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward?) The effect of it was to to turn this convention into a high court of impeachment. He would ask if gentlemen wished to organize themselves into a tribunal of that character? It was, in fact, conferring upon each of us the power, by our mere ipse dixit of turning these judges out of office.

What, he would repeat again, had we done? Why, we had settled that the judges shall continue in office so long as they behave themselves well. Look at the constitution of 1790, and see whether it does contain the same provision.

Shortly after this convention assembled, they declared that the judges should hold for the period of their commission. But now, we have just altered what had previously been done, and have provided that the supreme court judges shall hold for fifteen years. Many of the judges have been a great many years upon the bench. The present chief justice was elevated to the supreme bench, and after being ten or eleven years one of the associate judges, he was appointed at the age of forty-five, to his present high station. Before being raised to the bench, he was in great practice, and no doubt would have realized an ample fortune had he chosen to have remained at the bar. And now, at the age of fifty-five, after having sacrificed his chance of becoming rich, he is told that although "we may trust a new judge fifteen years, you may be turned out at nine." He (Mr. P.) would ask was it right or fair treatment towards these men, after they had taken office years ago with the understanding that they were to remain in office so long as they behaved themselves well?

He would ask, whether in the common business transactions of life between man and man, a man would not be entitled to claim the fulfil