The question being,

Shall the main question be now put?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DICKEY and Mr. MANN, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-MESSIS. Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster. Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curi!, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Farrelly, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gam ble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, High, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Maclay, Magee, Mann, M'Cal, M'Sherry, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancast r, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Riter, Ritter, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz,, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward-77.

NAIS-Messrs. Agnew, Barndollar, Bell, Biddle, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Coates, Cox, Craig, Dickey, Earle, Fleming, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Martin, M'Dowell, Meredith, Pollock, Purviance, Royer, Scott, Sill, Snively, Todd, Young, Sergeant, President-31.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

And on the question.

Will the convention agree to the motion, viz: That the said memorial be printed?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. KEIM and Mr. MACLAY, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Biddle, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cope, Cox, Crum, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Foulk rod, Harris, Hastings, Hays, Heister, Jenks, Keim, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, McCall, MeSherry, Pennypacker, Ritter, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Weaver, Young, Sergeant, President-36.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Nothampton, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darlington, Donnell, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Kennedy, Krebs, Magee, Mann, Martin, MeDowell, Meredith, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Russell, Scheetz, Serrill, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Woodward-68.

So the question was determined in the negative.

Mr. READ moved that the petition be not received.

The CHAIR was of opinion, the petition having been received and a vote taken upon it, that the motion was not now in order.

Mr. PURVIANCE then moved that the petition be rejected.

Mr. HIESTER, thought it was too late to receive this motion, after the petition had been received, debated, and a vote taken upon it. Certainly, to his mind, it appeared that a motion to reject the petition was not now in order.

The CHAIR decided, however, that the motion to reject, was in time, because the opportunity was not before given for the body to express an opinion upon this matter.

Mr. MARTIN said, as this petition had claimed the consideration of the convention for some time, he thought it was time now to get rid of it. He believed the right of petition to be a sacred right, when properly exercised, but when there was a disposition to turn the right of petition into ridicule by any set of persons, who professed to exercise the sacred right of petition, he conceived that it ought to receive the stamp of disapprobation of the body. He therefore moved to throw the petition under the table.

The CHAIR did not consider that this motion was in order, as there was another motion pending.

Mr. PURVIANCE said, it was not often that he troubled the convention with motions of this description, but on this occasion, he felt constrained to make the motion which he did, and as that motion was somewhat out of the ordinary course, and was somewhat of an extraordinary character, he would beg leave to explain the reason, in a few words, why he made it. The petition purports to be a petition from the grand inquest of the county of Berks, and it undertakes to dictate to this body, what shall be its future action in reference to its adjournment. Now, he should like to know by what authority the grand inquest of the county of Beiks, or of any other county, should undertake a duty of this kind. Why, he had always understood, that the duties of a grand inquest, was to inquire and make presentments under oath, of matters belonging alone to the county in which they resided.

Mr. PORTER explained, that they had not signed this petition in the character of jurors, but in their character as citizens.

Mr. PURVIANCE asked if they had not their endorsement on the back of the petition, as from the grand inquest of the county of Berks? Then this grand inquest undertakes to say, that we have gone beyond our duties, and that we should adjourn sine die. Now he should like to know from whence they derive their power to interfere with the business of this or any other legislative body. In his little knowledge of the laws of the country, he had always supposed that the jurisdiction of the grand inquest of any particular county, was not only confined to matters within that county, but that it was limited to criminal matters, and he had yet to learn that this convention had committed any offences against the laws of the country; or, that it has committed any penal offences. If the petition came from citizens of Berks county, he did not know that he would have any objection to receive it; but when it came from a body of men, in a public capacity, which had no right to send a petition here, he thought it ought to be rejected.

Mr. DICKEY regretted that the gentleman from Butler should have conceived it to be his duty to move the rejection of this petition, which certainly was not disrespectful in its terms. The document was not a presentment of the grand jury of Berks county, but it was a petition of the citizens of Berks county presented to this convention, couched in respectful language, asking it to terminate its session at once, and assigning reasons for this request.

Mr. D. had supposed that it was the province, alone, of southern gentlemen to object to the right of petition, and move their rejection whenever they did not suit their views; and he regretted, that in the halls of a convention of the people of Pennsylvania any such motion should be made. He sincerely regretted, that in a body of this kind an attempt should be made to reject the petition of any portion of our citizens, which was couched in respectful language.

Why, sir, this petition states nothing but the truth, and nothing but what has been asserted in this hall over and over again. He had looked into this petition which was represented as coming from the grand inquest of the county of Berks. The petition set out by saying "we the undersigned inhabitants of the county of Berks-(not the grand inquest of the county of Berks)-respectfully represent that your honorable body has been in session since the second of May last, with an interval from July to October, at an expense of one thousand dollars a day." Well, sir, is not this the truth? Have not certain members of this convention, time and again asserted that the expenses of the convention were a thousand dollars a day? Has not a single speech on this floor cost the people of Pennsylvania two thousand dollars, and he would ask the people of the state, whether that speech was worth two thousand dollars to them?

The facts, therefore, set forth in the petition are true, and being true, are respectful to the body. The petitioners further set forth, that they have reason to believe that a great majority of the people of the state, have been long since convinced that no salutary amendments to the constitution, such as will meet their approbation, will be made. Well, has not this been reiterated over and over again on this floor, and can that be looked upon as disrespectful to the convention? He was of opinion, that from the course this convention had been pursuing ever since May last, that those salutary amendments which the people had called for, would not be made. Why, then, should this petition be rejected, when it but told us the truth? The petitioners further state, that the convention has been discussing political and party matters, entirely foreign from the purposes for which they were met. Well, was not this, again, the truth; and had it not been reiterated over and over again on this floor? This had been asserted by many members on former occasions on this floor, and it could not be looked upon as disrespectful to the body.

Mr. EARLE rose to ask whether it was in order to refer to former debates on matters not now before the convention?

The CHAIR Considered the gentleman from Beaver in order.

Mr. DICKEY resumed. It was notorious that this convention had been engaged a greater portion of its time in the discussion of questions with which it had nothing to do, and in relation to which the people had never asked an amendment. These questions with which we have nothing to do, this convention has been debating week after week, and we have reason to expect that no salutary amendments to the constitution will be made.

The CHAIR here interrupted the gentleman by announcing that the hour had arrived for proceeding to the orders of the day.

ORDERS OFTHE DAY.

FIRST ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The convention proceeded to the consideration of the sixth section of the first article. The sixth section having been read and no amendment proposed, it was passed over by the convention.

The convention then took up the seventh section, as amended in committee of the whole, as follows:

"SECTION 7. The senators shall be chosen in districts, to be formed by the legislature, each district containing such a number of taxable inhabitants, as shall be entitled to elect not more than TWO senators : Unless a single city or county shall at any time be entitled to more than two senators; when a district shall be composed of two or more counties, they shall be adjoining; neither the city of Philadelphia, nor any county shall be divided in forming a district."

Mr. STERIGERE then moved to strike out the words "not more than two senators" and insert "one senator," and strike out the word "two" where it occurs in the fifth line. This motion, he would state, was made in committee of the whole, and came near passing there. Not, however, being fully discussed, and fully understood, it failed. introduced it upon the ground that every district for the election of senators, or any other officers of government, ought to be as small as possible.

He

No matter what might be its political effect, so far as he was concerned, he would go for it. He was in favor of an arrangement of congressional districts, to make them as small as possible; and upon the same principle, he was in favor of making all the other districts as small as possible. By having small districts, the people were made better acquainted with their representatives, and the representatives knew better the will and wishes of their constituents, than they could do if they were separated from them, as they were frequently in large districts. would also prevent counties being cut up for political effect; and in every point of view in which he looked at it, it was better to have small than large districts. If there could be any sound objections urged against this amendment, however, he should like to hear them.

It

Mr. BELL said, it struck him that one great objection to the amendment was this. It so happened now, that one county frequently holds such a proportion to another, that one has more than sufficient to entitle her to a representative, while the other has not a sufficient number to be entitled to one, without being united to the larger county. For instance, the county of Chester, had taxable inhabitants enough to entitle her to one senator, and she had a large fraction over. While Delaware had not

a sufficient number of taxable inhabitants to entitle her to one. Then, by aniting these counties, they were entitled to two senators. Whereas, if you divided them, they would either be entitled to but one between them, or else you must deprive them of a representative on the large fraction, and the other of any influence in the halls of the senate. If you adopt the

amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, you must either throw away the very large fraction in Chester, or deprive the county of a senator; either of which would be very unjust. If it would not operate in this way, he should be as much in favor of small districts, as the gentleman from Montgomery; but as it was, he took it, that the amendment of the gentleman would do manifest injustice to many counties.

Mr. FLEMING thought that the instance referred to by the gentleman from Chester, was not an insuperable objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery. In that case, Chester would be entitled to one senator, and have a large fraction over. Delaware county would have a senator given her on a number of taxables, which was larger than the fraction in Chester. Thus would the senators be given to the largest fractions, and no injustice would be done.

Mr. BELL felt satisfied, that from the injustice which would be done the counties he had alluded to, that the amendment ought not to be adopted. It might be the same case with regard to many other counties, The county of Chester had 11,600 taxables, while the county of Delaware only had 3,900. Then, by uniting these counties, you gave them two senators; but if you divided them, you must either not give Delaware any senator at all, or you must give her a senator, and throw away a fraction in Chester, almost as large as the whole number of taxables in Delaware county. This taken in either way, would be doing injustice.

The argument of the gentleman from Lycoming, was, that the small counties would have the largest fractions, and would be, therefore, entitled to senators on these fractions. This might be so, or it might not be so, and it was just as likely not to be so, as to be so. You will find that

the ratio increases faster in large than in small counties; therefore, the large counties would be most likely, always, to have more than their proportion of senators. He had pointed to the injustice which would be done in Delaware county, and such might be the case in other counties. He hoped, therefore, that the amendment would not be agreed to.

Mr. READ would make but a single remark, to draw the attention of the gentleman from Montgomery to the effect of his amendment. The effect of that amendment would be to disfranchise twenty-three of the small counties in this state in the senate of the state. We have fifty-three Counties now, and we know not how many more we will have, and but thirty-three senators. Then, if you take off two senators for the city of Philadelphia, and three for the county, the consequence will be that in all time to come you will have at least twenty-three of the small counties of the state, which will be entitled to no representatives in your senate. Should the number of counties increase, of course the number of disfranchised counties will increase. It seemed to him that the argument in relation to the matter, ought to induce the gentleman from Montgomery to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. STERIGERE said, if the amendment which he had submitted, would have the effect which the gentleman from Susquehanna apprehended it would be would withdraw it, but it would not have any such effect. The gentleman has told us that if the amendment was agreed to, that there would be a great many counties disfranchised. Now, he would rather