hoped, therefore, that the convention would go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering that particular section, which had not been properly or maturely considered before. He found that the amendment of which he spoke was not of such a character as, under the present lights which he had to guide his judgment, he would be willing to vote for.

Mr. BELL said. The motion I made was for a special purpose. Those amendments have now been passed through a first and second reading, and have now been read a third time. Every gentleman has had the power to present such amendments as he thought proper to offer; and it was some time since suggested, that as some of the amendments had been adopted hastily and, therefore, not with any great regard to phraseolgy, it would be proper to refer then to a committee on phraseology. It will be recollected that when the first committee on that subject was appointed, some difficulty arose in consequence of which they were discharged, and that another committee was appointed with power to suggest alterations in the phraseology, and also to suggest any existing contradictions in the amendments. That committee made a report and I have moved to go into committee of the whole for the purpase of considering that report. The motion of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) if it should prevail, will throw us all to sea again. I have nothing to say in opposition to it. I only inform the convention what its effect will be.

I suppose that the gentleman from Luzerne county, (Mr. Woodward) alludes to the fifth section of the first article. If he will refer to the report of the revising committee, he will see that the committee have reported the existence of au incongruity upon that section, and on which the convention can act.

The PRESIDENT said, he would state his views of the effect of the motion of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) and also of the motion of the gentleman from Franklin. (Mr. Chambers.)

When the amendments to the constitution—the chair continued—are on their third reading, no amendment can be made by the convention. But, in certain cases, those amendments may be referred back again to the committee of the whole, with instructions to make a particular amendment-in which case the convention would resolve itself into committee, simply for the purpose of making that partfcular amendment in obedience to the order of the convention.

In the opinion of the Chair, therefore, the motion of the gentleman from Chester and the motion of the gentleman from Franklin, are equivalent to each other. The only way of restricting the action of the committee of the whole, will be to move to go into committee of the whole with instructions to make a particular amendment.

Mr. BELL said, that he would then withdraw his motion, and move, in lieu of it, that the convention now resolve itself into committee of the whole for the purpose of adopting the amendments as reported by the revising committee.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said. I hope this motion will not be agreed to. It is too broad. It is not so broad as the former motion submitted by the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) nor as the amendment

to that motion submitted by the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Cham bers.) But still it is too broad. It brings up every part and parcel of each amendment that may have been agreed to in the first article. My own opinion is that, upon third reading, an amendment may be adopted in convention by a unanimous vote, and not otherwise. But where an amendment is proposed involving a question of principle, I, for one, will object to go into committee of the whole, except for the purpose of making a speciel amendment; so that if three, or four, or six amendments are required upon this article, the convention may go into committee as many times as any special amendment may be proposed.

I do not deny that it is in order to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of general amendment. But I do most sincerely hope no such motion may be agreed to, and I would suggest to the gentieman from Chester, to fix upon some special amendment and to move to go into committee of the whole specially for the purpose of adopting that amend ment. If we go into committee in that way, the committee will act deci dedly and will have no discretion as to rejecting the amendment. But the motion as he now put it will throw open the whole discussion. I shall therefore, as I have stated, oppose any motion to go into committee except for a special purpose.

I have no disposition to give the committee of the whole any discre tion, even if it should be necessary otherwise that we should go into committee twenty times a day. I am willing to go into committee only for the purpose of insecting such an amendment as may be required by the convention to be inserted.

The CHAIR said he would state for the information of the convention' that the motion last submitted by the gentleman from Chester, and now pending, was a motion specially to refer into committee of the whole with instructions to introduce the amendments made to the first article by the report of the revising committee.

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, said.

The motion of the gentleman from Chester will not effect the object which I have in view. My object is to get rid of the fifth section of the first article. I am desiious of getting rid of it, because, in the light in which I now view it, it seems to me to work a forfeiture of the rights of the smaller counties of this state. Porbably, I do not undrrstand it correctly, but I must say that according to my present understanding it will be found to work very prejudicially to the interests of the smaller counties.

Now what is the character of this section? It reads as follows:

"SECTION 5. Not more than three counties shall be united to form a representative district: No two counties shall be so united, unless one of them shall contain less than one half of the averege representative ratio of taxable population, unless two of them combined shall contain less than one half of the representative ratio aforesaid."

What then is

Such (continued Mr. W.) are the terms of this section. to be done with the smaller counties surrounded by large counties, which are entled to a apresention of themselves, and each of which contains more than one half of the average population? If they contain less than half, they will probably, under this amendment, claim a member; but if

they contain more, what is to be done? Their joint population will not be entitled to a member, and what is to be done with them? In the apportionment of the representatives under this section, the small counties will be sacrificed for the benefit of the large counties.

In the senatorial district which I represent on this floor, there are four counties two of which are small.

Mr. Woodward was here interrupted at this point of his remarks, and some discussion ensued on a point of order. After which,

Mr. BELL said, that, at the suggestion of several gentlemen, he would modify the motion he had made, so as to read as follows:

"That the convention do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole, for the purpose of amending the fourth section of the first article by striking therefrom, in the eighth and ninth lines, the words each county shall have at least one representative, but.'"

Mr. WOODWARD moved to amend that motion, by instructing the com mittee also to strike out the fifth section of the said article; but withdrew the motion, on the suggestions of Mr. Meredith.

A motion was then made by Mr. MEREDITH,

To amend the motion of Mr. Bell, as modified, by striking out therefrom all after the word " whole," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "on the amendments heretofore agreed to in the first article."

Mr. MEREDITH said, he had submitted this motion with a view to save time. If, (continued Mr. M.) the members of the convention will not give this article the consideration that is requisite, the fault will not be mine. When we are in committee of the whole, we are the same body that we are in the convention, and we can come out of committee whenever no difficulty arises. We have already spent half an hour in settling this preliminary question. And why so? Are we afraid to go into committee of the whole, when every man knows that our only object in going into committee is, to make the amendments in a regular and proper manner? When a committee has made a report like that submitted by the revising committee, it is a reflection on the common sense of this body to be going in and out of committee upon every sentence or word that may require correction or amendment.

If we wish to save time and to go on harmoniously, and to treat each other like men of sense and discretion, our proper course is to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of amending this article. I suppose every gentleman knows that the fifth section probably ought to be negatived on the ground taken by the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward.) The revising committee have reported an incongruity between that section and other parts of the constitution and that its effect would be to disfranchise the smaller counties. Let us at all events try the experiment, and go into committee of the whole on the article. If it should be found that there are any gentleman disposed to trravel, beyond the record and to go into other matters, let us evince to them that we will not suffer it to be done.

Mr. BELL said.

The suggestions of the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Meredith) are reasonable; and if it be understood that if we agree to the

amendment of that gentleman, we are all to confine ourselves to particular amendments or to the report of the revising committee, I, for one, am willing to do so. We are about to be trammelled by legislative rules in this body, which is different from all other bodies, and in this way to cripple the report of the revising committee. That committee as I understood the matter, was appointed for the purpose of pointing out alterations, inconsistencies &c., I am told now, however, that this can not be done, and that if the convention resolve itself into committee of the whole without special instructions, we shall be again at sea; and that thus every gentleman may be at liberty to offer an amendment whether it has been offered before or not. If this state of things could by any means be prevented, I would adopt the motion of the gentleman from the city of Philavelphia. But we have no assurance that this can be done. I know myself of one or two amendments which it is contemplated to offer, and thus we shall be left precisely where we are now.

Mr. MEREDITH said, he had risen just for the purpose of saying that the section in relation to divorces-which had been moved by the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) formed a part of the first article. He (Mr. M.) was under the impression that it was in another article. A motion has been made to reconsider that section, and he supposed the motion would be again brought up.

At all events, continued Mr. M. we gain nothing by the course we are now pursuing. You do not take away from any gentleman the power to move to go into committee of the whole upon any particular amendment, and if we go into committee in the manner I have indicated, we save the time of taking the votes of the house on going into committee, and then the votes in committee on going back again into convention. I trust the motion I have offered as an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Chester, will be agreed to. - I am satisfied that it will best answer our purpose.

Mr. CHAMBERS said.

I am in favor of the motion of the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Meredith.) It is certainly competent for the convention to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering all the amend ments that are contained in this article; and if we are to have a special vote on going into committee on every special amendment, it is clear that a great deal of time must be consumed. It is competent also for the convention to negative an amendment, in convention, without going into committee of the whole; and, the proposition of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) in relation to the fifth section of this article could be met in conventton as well as in committee of the whole. So far, therefore, as respects the purpose of the gentleman from Luzerne, it is unnecessary to go into committee of the whole, if it should be the will of a majority of the convention that that section shall be negatived. If, however, we do go into committee of the whole, the section can be negatived there as well as it can in convention.

The gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) has alluded to an intimation of mine, that I did desire to go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering an amendment contained in this article. It is true, I do so; and if the convention does not think proper to go into that question now,

I shall make a distinct proposition in reference to it. The section of which I speak is that which relates to the subject of divorces; a section which was adopted without due consideration, and which is in the following words:

"SECTION 5. The legislature shall not have power to enact laws annul ling the contract of marriage in any case where, by law, the courts of the commonwealth are, or may hereafter be, empowered to decree a divorce."

This section, continued Mr. C., was adopted, as I have said, without due consideration-the attention of the convention having been turned by another proposition. I was myself one of the number who voted in the majority; but within the time presented by the rules of the convention I moved a reconsideration of the vote on that section, which motion was duly seconded by another gentleman who had also voted in majority, (Mr. Chandler, of Chester.) Believing as I do that the convention has acted under a mistake in regard to that subject, I shall feel it my duty to bring it up at a proper season. I think that the greatest despatch will be attained if the convention will at once go into committee of the whole-not to be thrown to sea again upon the whole article, as the gentleman from Cherter says but for the purpose of considering the amendments-and the amendments alone--which are presented to us as the article stood after its second reading.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, suggested whether, to avoid difficulty, it would not be better to do that which the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) had in the first instance proposed; that was to say, go into committee of the whole for the purpose of making definite amendments. In this way, continued Mr. P., we shall agree beforehand for what we are going into committee of the whole. It will be a mere matter of form, and then we can come into convention again without delay. By this means, we shall have the definite direction to go into committee of the whole, and we shall have nothing to do but to obey that direction.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette county, said he believed that all the members of the convention had but one object in view; and that was, to get at the amendments in the most expeditious manner. The two sections which had been referred to by the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) and the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) were probably the only two parts of the whole article on which it would be necessary to go into committee of the whola.

But, if the motion of the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia should be adopted, he (Mr. F.) had no doubt, as the gentleman from Chester had stated, that the whole article would be again we know not where. A great many amendments had been offered to every article, and they had undergone ample discussion, and had consumed much of the time of the convention. And, no doubt if the article was again opened for discussion, many of the sections would be the subject of further discussion and further amendments would be offered. If the gentleman from Chester would make his motion more definite, so that the convention might resolve itself into a committee of the whole for a special purpose, much time would be saved thereby. He objected to going into commit tee on the whole article.

Mr. MEREDITH remarked that his motion seemed to be misunderstood.