Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, asked if gentlemen were not involving themselves in some difficulty. Suppose a resolution should be introduced relative to the amendment of the constitution. We had nearly reached the end of the session. How is it to be discussed? Half a dozen of the amendments may not be disposed of, and it may be necessary to embrace all those which are required, and which cannot be reached, in a resolution to be afterwards passed upon. By the adoption of this rule, therefore, we may cut off some of the amendments. We still find numbers in a situation in which we must throw several amendments together, or we shall be compelled to leave some of them untouched. Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, believed it might be found necessary, towards the close of the session, to occupy more than one hour in the consideration of resolutions. He moved that the further consideration of the resolution be postponed for the present. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, remarked that if, towards the close of the session, it should be found necessary to occupy more than one hour, the rule might be suspended. It might become necessary sometimes to suspend the rule. Mr. FULLER said if the resolution was adopted, it would be half-past ten o'clock before the house would proceed to business. An hour was long enough for the consideration of resolutions. Mr. EARLE said the gentleman from Montgomery had a dozen times repeated the assertion that he (Mr. Earle) had spoken four hours and a half on a subject, and then voted in favor of limiting speeches to one hour in length. The gentleman had better have that assertion placarded on the wall, and at the door of the hall. But he omitted to state that he (Mr. E.) had previously voted for adjournment on the 2d of February, which would have been impossible without such a limitation. He hoped the gentleman would publish the statement which he had so often made. The gentleman's constituents would, doubtless, be willing to limit his speeches to half an hour. He was opposed to the resolution. The lim itation had had the effect in congress to prevent action on resolutions. One member from the southern part of this state consumed the morning hour for fifteen days in a speech on a resolution. Mr. STURDEVANT moved the previous question. The motion was sustained, and the main question was ordered to be put. And on the question, Will the convention agree to the resolution? The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FULLER and Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, and are as follow, viz: YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crum, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dillinger, Donnell, Farrelly, Forward, Gearhart, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hiester, High, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lan caster, Purviance, Read, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Scott, Seltzer, Smith, of Columbia, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, Sergeant, President-72. NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Crawford, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Donagan, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Foulk rod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Grenell, Harris, Houpt, Maclay, Magee, M'Cahen, Nevin, Porter, of Northampton, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Stevens, Sturdevant, Taggart, Woodward, Young-28. So the question was determined in the affirmative. A motion was made by Mr. FLEMING, That when this convention adjourns, it will adjourn to meet again to-morrow morning at half-past nine o'clock. And on the question, Will the convention agree to the motion? The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FULLER and Mr. FLEMING, and are as follow, viz: YEAS.-Messrs. Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Bell, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickerson, Donnell, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Gamble, Gilmore, Hastings, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Russell, Scheetz, Scott, Shellito, Sterigere, Stevens, Sturdevant, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-62. NAYS.-Messrs. Agnew, Barndollar, Bigelow, Brown, of Lancaster, Clarke, of Beaver, Cleavinger, Crawford, Crum, Darlington, Darrah, Dickey, Dillinger, Donagan, Earle, Fuller, Gearhart, Grenell, Harris, Hayhurst, Kerr, Krebs, M'Call, Merkel, Nevin, Pennypacker, Purviance, Ritter, Royer, Saeger, Seltzer, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stickel, Taggart, Woodward-36. So the question was determined in the affirmative. A motion was made by Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, Which was agreed to. Adjourned until half past nine o'clock to-morrow morning. TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1838. Mr. FRY, of Lehigh, presented a memorial from citizens of Bucks county, praying that the constitution may be so amended as to prohibit negroes from the right of suffrage. Which was laid on the table. Mr. LONG, of Lancaster, presented a memorial of like import from citizens of Lancaster county. Which was also laid on the table. Mr. BIGELOW, of Westmoreland, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Westmoreland county. Which was also laid on the table. Mr. RITER, of Philadelphia county, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Philadelphia county. Which was also laid on the table. Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, having asked for the reading of one of these petitions, it was accordingly read. Mr. F. then said, he had desired to know what was the specific object prayed for, under the name of amalgamation. He hoped that the entry would be made on the journal in a proper manner, as these petitions seemed to look entirely to political effect. The PRESIDENT replied, that the journal would be made up in the customary manner; and if it was not in conformity to the wish of the convention, it could be corrected to-morrow. Mr. CAREY, of Bucks, presented a memorial from citizens of Philadelphia county, praying that no change may be made in the constitution, having a tendency to create distinctions in the rights and privileges of citizenship, based upon complexion. Which was laid on the table. Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Chester county. Which was also laid on the table. Mr. COATES, of Lancaster, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Lancaster county. Which was also laid on the table. Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia, presented the memorial of "the association of friends, for advocating the cause of the slave, and improving the condition of the free people of colour," praying that the right of trial by jury, may be extended to every human being. Which was also laid on the table. A motion was made by Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, and read as follows, viz: Resolved, That a committee of be appointed, to whom shall be referred the amendments made to the constitution on second reading, and whose duty it shall be to report, prepare, and engross them for a third reading. And on motion, The said resolution was read the second time. Mr. HOPKINSON moved to make the committee consist of five mem bers. Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, moved to make the number three. Mr. WEIDMAN, of Lebanon, moved that the committee consist of nine. The question being taken on the highest number, it was decided in the affirmative. So the the committee was ordered to consist of nine members; and, Ordered, That Messrs. Hopkinson, Denny, Chambers, Cunningham, Clarke, of Indiana, Forward, Porter, of Northampton, Dickey, and Read, be a committee for the purposes therein expressed. The question being on the resolution as amended, by the filling up of the blank, Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, said he should like to hear some reason for the adoption of this resolution, which seemed to him to be calculated to retard the business. Mr. HOPKINSON replied, that the reason was, simply, to prepare the amendments for engrossment, as we went along, and thus to accelerate the conclusion of our labors. Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, thought it might be better to give the committee the power to change the phraseology of the amendments, where it should be found defective. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver said, that when once referred, it would not be in the power of the committee to alter the language of any of the amendments, without the authority of the convention. They could only report the amendments as they were, and the convention would be obliged to go into committee of the whole, to make any change of phraseology. The resolution was then agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY. The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee, to whom was referred the first article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole. The question recurring, Will the convention agree to amend the third section, by inserting in the seventh line, after the word "state," the words " and shall thereafter have been a resident of one of the other states, or territories of this Union ?" It was determined in the negative. Will the convention agree to the amendment of the committee of the whole as amended? The yeas and nays were required by Mr. KREBS and Mr. BARCLAY, and are as follows, viz: YEAS.-Messrs. Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers. Cline, Cox, Crain, Dunlop, Earle, Gamble, Krebs, Long, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Montgomery, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Riter, Russell, Scheetz, Sellers, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Young-25. NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Fleming, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Pollock, Read, Ritter, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, Woodward, Sergeant, President-77. So the question was determined in the negative. Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend the third section in the eighth line; after the words "no person residing," by inserting the words, "less than one year," so that the sentence would read thus: "No person residing less than one year within any city, town or "borough, which shall be entitled to a separate representation, shall "be elected a member for any county, nor shall any person residing "without the limits of any such city, town, or borough, be elected a mem"ber thereof." In explanation of his motive, Mr. M. said, that some difficulty might arise, unless there was such an amendment, as there was some ambiguity in this section, as regards the city and county of Philadelphia. The city and county had a separate representation. It was not proper that a person, who was a resident of the county, should go into the city to be a candidate, or, vice versa, that a resident of the city should go into the county to be chosen. He wished to see the language of this section less ambiguous than it was in the third and fourth lines, which merely rendered it necessary that a person must have been "a citizen and inhabitant of the state, three years preceding his election, and the last year thereof, an inhabitant of the city or county in which he shall be chosen a representative," &c. He desired to have the language more clear. Mr. AGNEW, of Beaver, said, he did not know if he rightly understood the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia county. If he did, he thought the gentleman must have overlooked the third and fourth lines of the section, which were very plain. Mr. MARTIN repeated his explanation relative to the ambiguity of the third and fourth lines, by which persons residents in the county, could go into the city to be a candidate, and those from the county could go into the city. Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, expressed his hope that the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. He did not see any ambiguity in the |