a change of front in him, if he did not vote for
any one of these amendments. It was clear,
however, that there was too great a majority in
the House, who were resolutely opposed to an-
nual sessions, to be defeated in their object by
any parliamentary management. With this im-
pression, he had risen to request his friend from
Queen Anne, to disband the little army which
had thus far stood by him, in all his efforts. His
friend from Queen Anne, had exhausted all the
tactics which could be expected from the leader
of a forlorn hope. For his part, he was now wil-
ling to give the battle up. The amendment now
offered by his friend from Queen Anne, was
nearly the lame as the one which had been offered
by the gentleman from Harford, (Mr. Mc-
Henry,) for which he, (Mr. P.,) had voted. He
thought it would be very embarrassing to the
people, if they are required to vote at the polls,
not only for the Constitution as a whole, but on
this biennial provision, also, in a separate vote.
He had promised his friend from Queen Anne to
renew the call for the previous question.
Mr. SPENCER withdrew the previous question,
and said he disclaimed any intention to make a
speech. He could not, however, avoid express-
ing his surprise, at the course of the gentleman
from Baltimore. When that gentleman spoke of
an army against biennial sessions, he made a
great mistake. He would tell that gentleman,
that he was in favor of the biennial system. If
the gentleman from Baltimore was inclined to
withdraw, there were other gentleman who were
coming in to join him. The gentleman from
Baltimore county, (Mr. Ridgely,) had said, that
if the proposition was put in a shape to be sepa-
rately presented to the people for their vote, he
would be willing to go for it. Others round him
had said the same. The amendment he had now
offered, differed from that submitted by the gen-
tleman from Harford. The proposition offered
by the gentleman from Harford, was to hold over
the reference of this question to the people, until
the next election after the adoption of the Con-
stitution. But if the gentleman [from Harford
preferred his own amendment, and would move
a reconsideration of the vote by which it was re-
jected, and would amend it, he, (Mr. S.,) would
withdraw his amendment. We are framing a
Constitution which is to be submitted to the peo-
ple. The people having once passed on the ques-
tion of biennial sessions, there are some gentle-
men here who are unwilling to vote against the
judgment of the people. But. he believed, there
was no gentleman here, who is not willing to let
this question be specifically put to the people. He
referred to the various objections which had been
made, and suggested that the mode presented by
the amendment would obviate them all. It should
be borne in mind that there is no reservation by
which the Legislature can hereafter change the
sessions. If a majority of the people are in favor
of bienninl or annual sessions, who will oppose
their will
Mr. SHOWER demanded the previous ques-
tion.
Mr. RIDGELY requested him to withdraw the
demand, to enable him, (Mr. R„) to say a few

words in reply to the remarks of the gentleman
from Queen Anne, (Mr. Spencer,) who had, un-
intentionally, no doubt, misstated his, (Mr. R.'s)
position.
Mr. SHOWER declined to withdraw.
The question was then taken on the demand
for the previous question, and by ayes 31, noes
26, there was a second.
And the main question, (on the amendment of
Mr. Spencer,) was ordered to be now taken.
Mr. MITCHELL asked the yeas and nays on the
amendment, which were ordered, and being
taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Tuck, President, pro tem.,
Morgan, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall
Kent, Sellman, Merrick, Buchanan, Welch
Chambers, of Cecil, Miller, Sprigg, Spencer
George, Wright, Shriver, hiser, Stephenson
McHenry, Magraw, Nelson, Stewart, of Caroline
Gwinn, Brent, of Baltimore city, Presstman
Ware, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday
Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown
—37.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers, of Kent
Mitchell, Dalrymple, Brent, of Charles, Howard
Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood, of Talbot
John Dennis, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Phelps
Bowling, Dirickson, Hearn, Jacobs, Thomas
Gaither, Annan, Carter, Schley, Fiery, Neill
John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer
and Smith—30.
So the amendment was adopted.
Mr, DIRICKSON gave notice of his intention, at
the first opportunity, when there should be a full
Convention, to move a reconsideration of the
vote on the amendment just adopted.
Mr. SPENCER moved to amend the amendment
by adding the words "which shall not exceed
forty days."
A motion was made that the Convention ad-
journ.
The Convention refused to adjourn.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER moved to amend Mr.
SPENCER'S amendment, by striking out "forty,"
and inserting "thirty" days.
Mr. BROWN called for a division of the ques-
tion, (first on striking out forty,) which was
ordered.
Mr. DIRICKSON asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as fol-
lows;
Affirmative—Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers, of
Kent, Mitchell, Dalrymple, Lloyd, Dickinson,
John Dennis, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Phelps,
Bowling, Dirickson, Jacobs, Gaither, hiser, An-
nan, McHenry, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John New-
comer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Waters,
Hollyday, Fitzpatrick and Smith—38.
Negative—Messrs. Tuck, President, pro tem.,
Morgan, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Merrick, Howard, Buchanan,
Sherwood, of Talbot, Chambers, of Cecil, Sprigg,
Spencer, George, Wright, Thomas, Shriver,
Stephenson, Magraw, Nelson, Carter, Stewart,
of Caroline, Gwinn, Brent, of Baltimore city,
Presstman, Ware, Davis, Brewer, Anderson,
Weber, Parke, Shower, Cockey and Brown—36.
So the motion to strike out was rejected.