Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, moved an amendment and then withdrew it.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, moved that the convention do now adjourn. The motion was negatived, and a division being demanded, there appeared-ayes 47, noes 49.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM of Mercer, moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word "resolved" and inserting "that when any article of the constitution shall be under consideration on second reading, the sections shall be read and considered in their numerical order, and sections to which amendments have been made in committee of the whole shall be read with the amendments."

Mr. MEREDITH accepted the modification.
On motion of Mr. CLARKE of Indiana,
The Convention adjourned.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1837.

Mr. KONIGMACHER, of Lancaster, presented a memorial from citizens of Lancaster county, praying that the constitution may be so amended, as to provide that the civil rights, privileges, or capacities, of any citizen shall in no way be affected, diminished or enlarged, merely on account of his religious opinions; which was ordered to be laid on the table.

Mr. Lyons, of Delaware, presented two memorials from citizens of Delaware county, praying that no provision may be made for the further observance of the Sabbath, than that already provided by law; which was also laid on the table.

Mr. COPE, of Philadelphia, presented a memorial from citizens of Philadelphia county, praying that the right of trial by jury may be extended to every human being; which was also laid on the table.

Mr. CAREY, of Bucks, presented a memorial of like import, from citi. zens of Bucks county; which was also laid on the table.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, presented two memorials from citizens of Bucks county, praying that the constitution may be so amended, as to prohibit negroes from the right of suffrage; which were also laid on the table.

Mr. SELLERS, of Montgomery, presented a memorial from citizens of Montgomery county, praying that such measures may be adopted, as effectually to prevent all amalgamation between the white and coloured

population, in regard to the government of this state; which were also laid on the table.

Mr. FOULKROD, of Philadelphia county, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Philadelphia county; which was also laid on the

table.

A motion was made by Mr. BEDFORD, and read as follows, viz :

Resolved, That the following new rule be adopted by the convention, viz: “That when any twenty delegates rise in their places and move the question on any pending amendment, it shall be the duty of the presiding officer to take the vote of the body on sustaining such call; and if such call shall be sustained by a majority, the question shall be taken on such amendment without further debate.

This resolution was laid on the table for future consideration.

A motion was made by Mr. HIESTER, and read as follows, viz : Resolved, That no corporation shall hereafter be created, until three months' public notice of the application for the same shall have been first given in the place where its establishment is desired, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law; nor shall any corporation possessing banking or discounting privileges, be continued for more than twenty years without renewal; neither shall any such corporation be created, continued or revived, that may not be modified, altered or repealed, by the concurrent action of two successive legislatures, but the commonwealth shall indemnify all losses and damages that may accrue to any corporation by such action; nor shall more than one act of incorporation be included in the same law.

This resolution was laid on the table for future consideration; and, On motion of Mr. HIESTER, the resolution was ordered to be printed. A motion was made by Mr. KONIGMACHER, and read as follows, viz: Resolved, That when this convention adjourns, it will adjourn to meet on Tuesday morning, at half past nine o'clock.

A motion was made by Mr. KONIGMACHER,

That the convention proceed to the second reading and consideration of the said resolution.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the motion?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DARLINGTON and Mr. FULLER, and are as follows, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Cunningham, Curll, Donagan, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Foulk rod, Gamble, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Konigmacher, Lyons, Maclay, Martin, M'Cahen, McDowell, McSherry, Meredith, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Serrill, Stevens, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, Sergeant, President-51.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Coates, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Earle, Fry, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Heister, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Magee, McCall, Merkel, Montgomery, Nevin, Pennypacker, Purviance, Ritter, Koyer, Scheetz, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Young-58.

So the question was determined in the negative.

A motion was made by Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, and read as follows, viz:

Resolved, That the rules of this convention be amended by adding the following: "On second reading of the constitution, any new section or sections may be moved when the place is reached at which it is proposed to introduce such section or sections, and the previous question, if called and sustained, shall be upon such proposed new section or sections.

This resolution was laid on the table for future consideration.

A motion was made by Mr. STEVENS, and read as follows, viz;

Resolved, That no delegate shall be permitted to speak at one time, more than one hour and a half, without leave of the convention, and that the resolution restricting speeches to one hour, be rescinded.

This resolution was laid on the table for future consideration.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

The convention resumed the consideration of the resolution read on yesterday, as follows, viz:

Resolved, That on second reading, the convention will consider the several articles of the constitution, in their numerical order, and that the sections, shall be read in the same order, and be considered and open for amendment: Provided, That when any section shall have been amended in committee of the whole, the section shall be read as amended.

The said resolution being under consideration,

A motion was made by Mr. CUNNINGHAM, of Mercer,

To amend the same by striking therefrom all after the word "Resolved," and inserting in lieu thereof the following, viz: "That when any article of the constitution shall be under consideration on second reading, the sections shall be read and considered in their numerical order, and sections to which amendments have been made in committee of the whole shall be read with the amendments."

to.

The question being taken, the motion of Mr. CUNNINGHAM was agreed

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend the resolution, by striking out all the words, after the word "Resolved," and inserting the words following, viz:

That the rules of this convention be amended, by adding the following: "On second reading of the constitution, any new section or sections may be moved when the place is reached at which it is proposed to introduce such section or sections, and the previous question, if called and sustained, shall be upon such proposed new section or sections."

Mr. CUNNINGHAM, of Mercer, suggested that, as this was a new rule, it must, under the rules, lie one day on the table, before it can come up for consideration. There were other reasons which induced him to object to the amendment. He had no objection to the first part of the proposition.

Mr. EARLE then said, he would decide the amendment. If the first part should be agreed to, the second would follow, as a matter of course. Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, said he considered the amendment as entirely superfluous.

The PRESIDENT remarked, that the first part of the amendment was not merely superfluous, but would be found inconvenient in practice. On account of the words "when the place is reached, at which it is proposed to introduce such section or sections "-it would impose on the Chair the obligation to point out the proper place.

Mr. M'SHERRY considered the resolution of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, as being wholly unnecessary. The proper course would be to take up the sections in their order. Then, after they were all passed upon, if any gentleman wished to offer a new section, he could do so, and it would be numbered according to its place. If this was not done, it would become necessary to change the numbers to all the sections following a new section.

Mr. HIESTER remarked, that notwithstanding all that had been said, with reference to changing our rules, he thought the better course would be to proceed according to the rules which we had. As our time was limited, he thought, we had better do the most important work first. According to the rules which we have, we will proceed first to consider those amendments which were agreed to in committee of the whole, and he thought that that would occupy what time we have to spare between this and the day fixed for adjournment. If, however, we proceed in the course pointed out by this new rule, he would venture to predict that we will not have completed the first article, by the second of February. If we attempted to change our rules, he feared that we would get into a labyrinth of difficulties, from which it would be difficult to extricate ourselves.

Mr. STERIGERE thought the observations of the Chair were worthy of great consideration. He believed that the construction which the Chair put upon the rule was, that after the amendments agreed to in committee of the whole were passed upon, a new section might be introduced.

The CHAIR said, if the convention decide against the order, he would feel himself bound to receive new sections when presented: but, it would be for the convention to decide, whether the section should be inserted at such places. This, he believed, had been the uniform practice of the convention.

Mr. STERIGERE considered then, that this amendment was altogether useless, and worse than useless, and he hoped it would either be withdrawn or negatived.

Mr. AGNEW supposed that the gentleman from the county of Philadel phia, (Mr. Earle) considered that they were all asleep. The amendment now proposed, was nothing more than the substance of the resolution which the convention voted down on yesterday. The amendment would lead the convention into interminable difficulty. The effect of it would be just this, that every gentleman who had an amendment to move, no matter whether there was another person in the house who would vote for it, he would move it as a new section, and the house would be compelled to take a vote upon it.

In this manner would the convention be continually kept taking votes upon questions which no person but the mover and seconder would vote for. For instance, we have had an amendment proposed in committee of the whole, in relation to a distribution of the powers of the government, and debated for a week and rejected.

Now, he did not suppose that such a proposition ought to be introduced again; but, if we adopt this new rule, every one of those propositions which have been rejected, will be again thrown upon us, and we will have to take a vote on each of them.

He considered that those amendments which have been made in committee of the whole, were of most importance, and that they ought to be first acted upon. He was, therefore, opposed to any alteration in the rules of the convention, more especially was he opposed to the one proposed by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

Mr. EARLE said, that the objection of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Agnew) had no weight in it, because a single member might just as well move an amendment as a section, and the convention would be compelled to take a vote upon it, unless the previous question was moved. But, it was considered entirely improper by the gentleman from Beaver, and others, and why? Why, sir, it was because they had a repugnance to taking a direct vote on certain questions. There has been a great repugnance by gentlemen in this convention, to having votes taken on many subjects, which the people have petitioned the body in relation to. There was a great repugnance to give votes on questions which are of the utmost importance to the people of this commonwealth. We have had petition after petition, to have something inserted in the constitution, in relation to religious liberty, test oaths, and the right of trial by jury; but the moment we reach that part of the constitution in which our constituents ask us to insert something on these subjects, that moment the gentleman from Beaver, and other gentlemen, vote to cut us off from all opportunity to make a motion, and get any thing inserted in the constitution on the subject.

Is the gentleman from Beaver unwilling to allow a vote to be taken on these important subjects, if the mover and seconder ask a vote to be taken? If questions are introduced, which no one but the mover and seconder will support, let them be voted down without discussion. That is by far the most expeditious mode of doing business, and an immense deal of time will be saved by it.

He had seen gentlemen here, voting to cut off their own speeches, for the purpose of preventing a vote being taken on a particular question. Afterwards, when they could not sustain themselves, they have turned round and denounced the rule which would not allow them to speak more than an honr. The rule he now proposed was not a new rule, but the president had marked out a course of proceeding, under the construction he had put upon the resolution pending, entirely contrary to the usage in the legislative body, and every where else. He had been assured that the legislative rule was directly the reverse of that which the President has declared to be his construction of this resolution.

Mr. E. was content to act under the legislative rules, and he wished