Mr. MERRICK. I withdraw the motion to reconsider.

Mr. THOMAS. I renew it.
Mr. THOMAS said be should vote against the
proposition in the form inwhich it was offered.
He could not consent to take it as an isolated
proposition. If we send back this subject to the
committee it will lead to interminable motions
to amend. He would vote for the reconsidera-
tion, for the purpose of embracing both branches
of the Government in one resolution.
Mr. MORGAN (to the Chair.) Is it in order to
move the previous question?
The PRESIDENT. The motion is in order.
Mr. MORGAN. I move it.
SEVERAL VOICES. Move to lay the motion to
re-consider on the table.
Mr. MORGAN. I will substitute a motion to
lay on the table for the previous question. But,
before I do so, I desire to say, that I make the
motion because I forsee that the debate is to be
interminable, unless arrested by one of these pro-
cesses which the rules of the Convention place
within our reach. Ideas have been thrown out
by gentlemen, which, if persisted in, can lead to
no practical result, but the discussion may con-
same an indefinite length of time. I move that
the motion to re-consider be laid upon the table,
and on that motion I call for the yeas and nays
Some conversation followed as to the effect of
the motion, on the part of Mr. BROWN, Mr.
CHAMBERS, of Kent, and the CHAIR.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
And the question, "shall the motion to re-con-
sider be laid upon the table," was then taken, and
the result was as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Wells, Kent, Weems, Bond,
Sollers, Jenifer, John Dennis, James U. Dennis,
Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hodson, Phelps,
Tuck, McCubbin, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs
Sappington, Stephenson, Nelson, Thawley, Kil-
gour, and Waters—33.
Negative—Messrs. Donaldson, Buchanan, Bell,
Welsh, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson
Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, Constable, Cham-
bers of Cecil, Miller, McLane, George, Wright,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Magraw, Stew-
art of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore
city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of Balti-
more city, Presstman, Ware, Fiery, Neill, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Brew-
er, Weber, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower,
and Brown—40.
So the Convention decided that the motion to
re-consider should not be laid upon the table.
And the question recurred on the motion to re-
consider the vote of the Convention, adopting
the first branch of the order.
The PRESIDENT proceeded to count.
Mr. SHRIVER demanded the yeas and nays,
Mr. STEWART, of Caroline, said. that, in ad-
dition to the reasons assigned by the gentleman
from Frederick, (Mr. THOMAS,) he, (Mr. S.,)
had voted against the proposition because he was
opposed to giving instructions to committees upon

any thing. If the principle was adopted on one
subject, they might be called upon to give in-
structions upon all. He desired also to remark
that the vote he had given was net to be consid-
ered as the expression of his opinion upon any of
the propositions, but merely as refusing to give
instructions.
The question was then taken.
The PRESIDENT stated that the motion was re-
jected—yeas 32, noes 33.
Mr. PRESSTMAN called for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDENT said it was too late, the result
having been announced.
Mr. SHRIVER said, he had called for the yeas
and nays, before the question was taken.
The PRESIDENT said the chair had cot heard
the gentleman.
Some conversation followed, when
The PRESIDENT suggested that gentlemen de-
siring the yeas and nays, might accomplish their
object by another motion to reconsider the vote
on the resolution.
Mr. PRESSTMAN renewed the motion to recon-
sider.
Mr. BROWN called the yeas and nays, which
were ordered.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, submitted as a point
of order to the chair, that a motion to reconsider
having just been disposed of, there must be some
intervening action, before another motion to re-
consider could be entertained. Self-protection
required this. Otherwise, it would be in the
power of every one of the one hundred and three
members of the Convention, to move a reconsideration,
one after the other, and thus prevent
definitive action on any proposition.
The PRESIDENT. Under the rule as it now
stands, a motion to reconsider may be made a
dozen times.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent. If the motion to re-
consider should prevail, it brings back the ques-
tion to the proposition, whether the Senate shall
be composed of one Senator from each county,
and from the city of Baltimore. I do not desire
to say a word in relation to the chairman of the
committee, but I now state that every word the
chairman has said—
Mr. PRESSTMAN interposed to a question of
order, that it was not competent to review the re-
marks of the gentleman from Charles, [Mr. Mer-
rick.] or to refer to what had occurred.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then I will not refer to the
gentleman from Charles.
Mr PRESSTMAN. We will see to what the
gentleman does refer.
Mr. DENT, (to the President.) Is this a re-
newal of the motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDENT. It is.
Some conversation followed on the point of
order, between Mr. DENT and the PRESIDENT.
The PRESIDENT said, that a majority of the
Convention could, under the rule, give consent to
another motion to reconsider. And the Chair
would put the question in that form. The ques-
tion was not debateable.
Mr. BLAKISTONE submitted a further question
on the point of order.