insert in lieu thereof the words "on the rise and progress of Antimasonry". Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, thought the time had gone by when subjects of this kind would find their way into bodies like this. For the last few years no one could open an Antimasonic newspaper, or listen to an Antimasonic speech, but he would find the same statements, of what the EMPEROR of RUSSIA, DANIEL O'CONNELL, or the KING of SPAIN were doing against the poor Freemasons. It reminded him of the fiddler who, when asked to play any tune, no matter what, always ended with "Dick bang the weaver". It seemed they were going to have "Dick bang the weaver" again. Mr. CHANDLER, of the city, said, I rise, Mr. President, to express a hope that the gentleman from the county, (Mr. DORAN) will withdraw his motion; and the gentleman from Adams (Mr. STEVENS) will also see the propriety of not pressing his upon the Convention. Whatever views of policy may be deemed expedient in the organization of a party, or in prosecution of a general canvass, it seems to me, sir, that here at least we should adopt the spirit of the wise man's recommendation, and answer not an improper proposition, according to its impropriety. The duties of the members of this Convention are solemn and of high import; and it would be offering violence to the views, if not an insult to the feelings of our constituents, to make this room the arena of party squabbles or of personal recriminations. I should be unwilling to make any committee of this body, much less the Convention itself, the historians of such matters as the resolution of the gentleman from the county proposes for consideration. And as for the matter of secret societies, I appeal to my friend from Adams, whether we as co-partizans, were not sufficiently rebuked by last October elections, for a public interference in such concerns. The gentleman from Adams talks of these societies having been driven from Europe. I can know, sir, of course, nothing of secret societies. I have, indeed, heard that one society was once broken up in Europe; but I have heard also, that it is revived there, and introduced here. As that, perhaps, may come under the distinction of secret society, it may be well to ask, from the other delegate from Adams, as well as my friend from the county, who moved the last resolution, whether they will not find what is dearest in their views of religious freedom, strangely violated, when the Constitution of Pennsylvania shall be made to deny existence to a society established to disseminate science, by peaceable means, and in connexion with that religion which they both profess. I have no wish to limit the proper action of this body; but I solemnly protest against the introduction of matters totally irrelevant to its objects and derogatory to the dignity with which the people and the Legislature of the State have clothed it. And I ask, Sir, whether the course now pursued is such as will commend our deliberations to the approval of our constituents. If the solemn duties devolved upon us are not sufficient to confine our action to proper subjects, it would be better for us, and more edifying to the people, that we should adjourn at once, than to present the spectacle of passionate discussions of subjects, forced upon us by party discipline, or for the gratification of personal feeling. Let us rather adjourn immediately, and say to our constituents that being unable to per form any good work for which we were elected, we had the honesty at least to abstain from the performance of positive evil and the exhibition of bad examples. Mr. MANN moved to postpone the amendment and amendments, indefinitely. Pending this motion, The Convention adjourned. MONDAY, MAY 8, 1837. On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the orders of the day were postponed for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of the report of the committee on rules. Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, moved to postpone the 29th rule, relative to the appointment of committees, for the present, in order that they might consider and adopt the remaining rules. Mr. CLARKE said, the more he reflected upon this matter the more he was convinced that the reference first of each article of the Constitution to a separate standing committee was not the best mode of proceeding. He apprehended there would be a great diversity of opinion in these committees. Some might be so radical that they would introduce a great deal of novelty into the Convention, while others might be so conservative as to think there were no alterations at all necessary in the Constitution. In consequence of this they might have, as, he doubted not, they would have, in many instances two reports, and perhaps in some three; and this he considered would rather tend to confuse than to enlighten the members of the Convention. He thought the best plan was to take up the Constitution in committee of the whole, and there consider it article by article, and section by section, and take the sense of the committee on each, and when the majority thought any amendment necessary in a particular section, they could adopt a resolution, that in the opinion of the committee the Constitution ought to be amended, as they might indicate. This was the course pursued in the Convention of 1789-90. The Convention met on the 24th November, 1789, and after consuming eight days in organising and preparing for business, they went into committee of the whole on the 1st of December, and on the 9th of December the committee of the whole reported a set of resolutions expressive of the sense of the committee of the whole as to the matters to be embraced in the new Constitution. That report was discussed two days, when a committee was appointed to put the Constitution in a proper form to be brought before the Convention. In ten days afterwards this committee reported in part, and in two days made a further report. On the 23d of December the Convention went into committee of the whole on the Constitution as reported by the committee of nine. On the 5th of February, 1790, the committee of the whole made another report. On the 18th of February it was referred to a committee of three for the purpose of revision. On the 24th of February the committee of three made a partial report, and on the 26th of February, reported the remainder, when the Convention adjourned to meet again on the 9th of August. The Convention then met on the 9th of August and discussed the Constitution until the 2nd of September, when it was adopted insert in lieu thereof the words "on the rise and progress of Antimasonry". Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, thought the time had gone by when subjects of this kind would find their way into bodies like this. For the last few years no one could open an Antimasonic newspaper, or listen to an Antimasonic speech, but he would find the same statements, of what the EMPEROR of RUSSIA, DANIEL O'CONNELL, or the KING of SPAIN were doing against the poor Freemasons. It reminded him of the fiddler who, when asked to play any tune, no matter what, always ended with "Dick bang the weaver". It seemed they were going to have "Dick bang the weaver” again. Mr. CHANDLER, of the city, said, I rise, Mr. President, to express a hope that the gentleman from the county, (Mr. DORAN) will withdraw his motion; and the gentleman from Adams (Mr. STEVENS) will also see the propriety of not pressing his upon the Convention. Whatever views of policy may be deemed expedient in the organization of a party, or in prosecution of a general canvass, it seems to me, sir, that here at least we should adopt the spirit of the wise man's recommendation, and answer not an improper proposition, according to its impropriety. The duties of the members of this Convention are solemn and of high import; and it would be offering violence to the views, if not an insult to the feelings of our constituents, to make this room the arena of party squabbles or of personal recriminations. I should be unwilling to make any committee of this body, much less the Convention itself, the historians of such matters as the resolution of the gentleman from the county proposes for consideration. And as for the matter of secret societies, I appeal to my friend from Adams, whether we as co-partizans, were not sufficiently rebuked by last October elections, for a public interference in such concerns. The gentleman from Adams talks of these societies having been driven from Europe. I can know, sir, of course, nothing of secret societies. I have, indeed, heard that one society was once broken up in Europe; but I have heard also, that it is revived there, and introduced here. As that, perhaps, may come under the distinction of secret society, it may be well to ask, from the other delegate from Adams, as well as my friend from the county, who moved the last resolution, whether they will not find what is dearest in their views of religious freedom, strangely violated, when the Constitution of Pennsylvania shall be made to deny existence to a society established to disseminate science, by peaceable means, and in connexion with that religion which they both profess. I have no wish to limit the proper action of this body; but I solemnly protest against the introduction of matters totally irrelevant to its objects and derogatory to the dignity with which the people and the Legislature of the State have clothed it. And I ask, Sir, whether the course now pursued is such as will commend our deliberations to the approval of our constituents. If the solemn duties devolved upon us are not sufficient to confine our action to proper subjects, it would be better for us, and more edifying to the people, that we should adjourn at once, than to present the spectacle of passionate discussions of subjects, forced upon us by party discipline, or for the gratification of personal feeling. Let us rather adjourn immediately, and say to our constituents that being unable to per form any good work for which we were elected, we had the honesty at least to abstain from the performance of positive evil and the exhibition of bad examples. Mr. MANN moved to postpone the amendment and amendments, indefinitely. Pending this motion, The Convention adjourned. MONDAY, MAY 8, 1837. On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the orders of the day were postponed for the purpose of proceeding to the consideration of the report of the committee on rules. Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, moved to postpone the 29th rule, relative to the appointment of committees, for the present, in order that they might consider and adopt the remaining rules. Mr. CLARKE said, the more he reflected upon this matter the more he was convinced that the reference first of each article of the Constitution to a separate standing committee was not the best mode of proceeding. He apprehended there would be a great diversity of opinion in these committees. Some might be so radical that they would introduce a great deal of novelty into the Convention, while others might be so conservative as to think there were no alterations at all necessary in the Constitution. In consequence of this they might have, as, he doubted not, they would have, in many instances two reports, and perhaps in some three; and this he considered would rather tend to confuse than to enlighten the members of the Convention. He thought the best plan was to take up the Constitution in committee of the whole, and there consider it article by article, and section by section, and take the sense of the committee on each, and when the majority thought any amendment necessary in a particular section, they could adopt a resolution, that in the opinion of the committee the Constitution ought to be amended, as they might indicate. This was the course pursued in the Convention of 1789-90. The Convention met on the 24th November, 1789, and after consuming eight days in organising and preparing for business, they went into committee of the whole on the 1st of December, and on the 9th of December the committee of the whole reported a set of resolutions expressive of the sense of the committee of the whole as to the matters to be embraced in the new Constitution. That report was discussed two days, when a committee was appointed to put the Constitution in a proper form to be brought before the Convention. In ten days afterwards this committee reported in part, and in two days made a further report. On the 23d of December the Convention went into committee of the whole on the Constitution as reported by the committee of nine. On the 5th of February, 1790, the committee of the whole made another report. On the 18th of February it was referred to a committee of three for the purpose of revision. On the 24th of February the committee of three made a partial report, and on the 26th of February, reported the remainder, when the Convention adjourned to meet again on the 9th of August. The Convention then met on the 9th of August and discussed the Constitution until the 2nd of September, when it was adopted and the Convention adjourned. This was the plan adopted by those who formed the present Constitution; and with the exception of not referring it to the people, it was in his opinion the best plan. He was in favor of taking up the Constitution, article by article, in committee of the whole, so that each delegate might give his views and the sentiments of the whole Convention could in this way be ascertained. But let the separate committees now contemplated go out, and when they come back with their reports, we shall be less prepared to form a Constitution than we are now. The motion to postpone the twenty-ninth rule was then agreed to. "The yeas and nays of the delegates, on any question, shall, at the desire of any two of them, be entered on the journals, and the delegates shall have a right to insert the reasons of their votes on the journals". Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend by inserting after the word "question", the words "except on a motion to adjourn from day to day". Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, suggested the following as a modification of the above, "except on questions of daily adjournment, or on a question for leave to make a motion, or to offer a resolution", which Mr. BROWN accepted as a modification. Mr. READ thought the question on daily adjournment was not one of sufficient importance, to make it necessary to call the yeas and nays, besides it was a motion which might be repeated frequently on the same day, and the yeas and nays taken on it occasioning very great loss of time. With regard to the other question, it was merely a preliminary motion, and he considered, from the disposition already exhibited to have the yeas and nays called, that it would be a very great saving of time to dispense with them. Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, was desirous of seeing another amendment of this rule; he would, therefore, suggest to the gentleman from Susquehanna, to allow him first to make a motion to strike out the words "any two", and insert "one fifth" so that it should require one fifth of the delegates to call the yeas and nays. This was the practice in the Congress of the United States, and he considered it far preferable to having the yeas and nays called by two delegates, Mr. READ did not think it necessary on questions of adjournment, and for leave to make a motion, to encumber the journals with the yeas and nays at all; but at the same time on important questions he would not be in favor of placing any other restrictions than those now proposed by the rule. The amendment of Mr. BROWN was then agreed to. Mr. STERIGERE then moved to amend the rule by striking out the words "any two", and inserting in lieu thereof" twenty". Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, said, before they made so great a departure from the established rule practiced upon in the Legislature, he should like to hear some good reason for it. According to the suggestion of the gentleman from Montgomery, no matter how important the question might be, and no matter what desire there might be on the part of the people to know how their representatives voted, unless there could be found twenty |