Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloch, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Milier, Montanya, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rives, Robin. son, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkwea her, Steenrod, Strong, Sumpter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Turney, Vroom, Watt rson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, Joseph L. Williams, and Worthington-116.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Alford, John W. Allen, Andrews, Barnard, Bell, Biddle, Botts, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, Calhoun, W. B. Campbell, Carter, Chinn, J. Cooper, Crabb, Cranston, Curtis, Cushing, Edward Davies, Garret Davis, Deberry, Dennis, Dellet, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Rice Garland, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Habersham, Hall, W. S. Hastings, Hawes, Henry, Hunt, James, C. Johnston, William Cost Johnston, Lincoln, McCarty, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Naylor, Nisbet, Ogle, Osborne, Palen. Pope, Proffit, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Reed, Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Sergeant, Simonton, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Stuart, Taliaferro, Til linghast, Toland, Trumbull, Underwood, Wagner, Warren, Edward D. White, John White, Thos. W. Williams, Lewis Williams, Christopher H. Williams, and Wise-85.

So the rules were not suspended.

Various Senate bills on the SPEAKER'S table were taken up, read twice, and appropriately referred.

The SPEAKER announced that the first business in order on the calendar was the bill introduced by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] to "secure the freedom of elections."

Mr GENTRY who was entitled to the floor on the above bill, without discussing the principles involved in it, replied with much pungency to the remarks of his colleague [Mr. WATTERSON] when the bill was last up. He charged his colleague with being a new convert to Democracy, and that he had supported Judge White as an Opposition candidate. In the course of his remarks he was twice called to order by the SPEAKER, for irrelevancy of debate; when

Mr. PETRIKIN objected to his proceeding.

Mr. WATTERSON hoped that his colleague would be permitted to proceed in his own way.

Mr. GENTRY said it was not his wish to violate any rule of the House; but it was impossible to reply to the remarks of his colleague in order.

The question was then taken whether Mr. G. should proceed in his remarks, and it was determed in the affirmative-there heing only three opposed to his procceding.

Mr. G. then finished his remarks in reply to his colleague (Mr. WATTERSON] and in an examination of his political course, to prove his inconsistency. After which he went into a defence of General Harrison from the charges against him, particularly with reference to the identity of his principles with those of the Abolitionists.

He repelled the idea that he was an Abolitionist; and said he did not believe that there was a gentleman in the House who believed that General Harrison was an Abolitionist, notwithstanding some had garbled his speeches to make it appear that he was one.

Mr. COOPER of Georgia interrupted Mr. G. and was under. stood to say, in substance, that whether the charge against Gen. Harrison that he was an Abolitionist were well founded or not, was perfectly immaterial. It was a well known fact that he was supported by the Abolitionists; and if he came into power by the support of that party, he would be influenced by that party to a greater or less degree, and would be compelled to yield the policy of his administration to the wishes of that party.

Mr. GENTRY was proceeding to deny the position assumed by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. COOPER;] but before he had finished, the hour arrived for the House to take a re

cess.

EVENING SESSION.

Mr. PETRIKIN asked for a count of the House; which was had, and it appeared that there were but thirty-three members in their seats.

Mr. GENTRY resumed his remarks. He contended that the Abolitionists did not belong exclusively to either party; but that they had affected a separate organization. Mr. G. justi fied the rallying cry of "log cabins" and "hard cider," now used by the Whig party, on the ground that it deprived the Administration of one of its most successful means of influence by which they appealed to the prejudices of the people, and met it on its own mode of warfare. He agreed with his colleague [Mr. BELL] that the evils which this bill was intended to remedy were of great magnitude; but he did not believe, though the bill was one of great magnitude, that it would be fully efficacious-that it would accomplish the end desired. The only effectual remedy for the evil would be found in an enlightened public sentiment, or through the ballot box, or by altering the Constitution, so as to have but one Presidential term; or by making some statutory provision limiting the appointing power; or by restricting the power of removal from office by the Executive, without his giving sufficient reasons for such removals. He doubted the efficacy of the bill very much; and thought the Federal patronage ought to be diminished.

Mr. BROWN of Tennessee obtained the floor, but yielded it to his colleague [Mr. WATTERSON] for explanation.

Mr. WATTERSON spoke for some time in reply to that por tion of Mr. GENTRY's remarks which attacked his (Mr. W's) political carcer. By a reference to documents and newspapers, he triumphantly repelled those charges, and showed that the crime of political inconsistency was more applicable to certain other gentlemen, who were so famous for attributing it to their colleagues.

One charge against him was, that he had formerly supported Judge White as an Opposition candidate, whereas he was now in the Van Buren ranks. In relation to that, Mr. W. showed that when, with others in the Legislature of his State, he voted for the resolutions nominating Judge White, he did it on the ground that the Judge was considered as the ablest candidate to carry out the great principles of Jackson's administration. He also referred to the speeches of Mr. Bell and of Mr. Peyton, showing that in 1835 they took the same ground, and repudiated the idea that Judge White belonged to the Opposition. He most ably vindicated himself from the charges of his colleague, and showed conclusively that he was now maintaining the great principles of General Jackson's administration, which Mr. White was brought forward to carry out. His remarks will be published hereafter.

Mr. BANKS obtained the floor, but yielded it to Mr. BROWN, on the condition that he should speak to the present bill; as to

discussion of matters and things in general, he was getting; very tired of it.

Mr. BROWN promised; and then, after going at some length into a reply to remarks made by Mr. BELL some time ago, on the general grounds of the bill, he proceeded to a regular analysis of its provisions, commencing with the title, and so advancing in order. He had entered a short way into the subject, when he yielded the floor to

MI. CHRISTOPHER H. WILLIAMS, who moved that the House adjourn.

Mr. TAYLOR demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and were-yeas 84, nays 62.

The House, at 6 o'clock, adjourned.

IN SENATE,

WEDNESDAY, May 20, 1840.

Mr. TAPPAN, from the joint Committee on the Library, reported a joint resolution for the distribution of the Digest of Patents; which was read, and ordered to a second reading. The report of the Committee on Claims, adverse to the claim of William and James Crook, was taken up for consideration: [The history of the case, as given in the report of the committee, was briefly this: The claimants were owners of a ves sel on Lake Ontario, which was seized by an officer of the United States for a supposed violation of the embargo laws. The vessel was sold, and the proceeds deposited with Theron Rudd, the clerk of the district court. A decree of restitution was afterwards obtained, and the proceeds were directed to be paid over to the owners of the vessel; but the clerk, in the meantime, had absconded with the funds. The claim was then made the subject of negotiation between our Government and that of Great Britain. It was met by the American Minister with the claim of the owners of the American ship Lydia, which was governed by the same principles, which the British Government having refused to adjust, the matter rested until 1:34, when the British owners presented their claim to Congress. The committee reported adversely, on the ground that the question remains as an unadjusted subject of negotiation between the two Governments, and would give an undue advantage to the citizens of a foreign Government over those of our own.]

Mr. HUBBARD explained and advocated the adoption of the report, and Messrs. CLAY of Kentucky, DAVIS, and KNIGHT opposed it: after some remarks by Mr. WRIGHT, the question was informally passed over.

GENERAL BANKRUPT LAW.

The bill to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy being taken up:

Mr. DIXON spoke at some length in favor of the original bill, and in opposition to the substitute proposed by Mr. WALL, and was followed by

Mr. NORVELL, who, in the course of his remarks, expressed his intention of voting in favor of including corporations within the provisions of the bill; but if this could not be carried, he would vote for the best bill that could be obtained, believing the passage of some measure of the kind imperatively called

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, May 20, 1840.

As soon as the journal had been read,

Mr. PETRIKIN moved to amend the same by inserting in detail, the points of order raised on yesterday when Mr. GENTRY was addressing the House on the bill for securing the freedom of elections. Mr. P. thought such things ought to be made" a matter of record. It could not be denied that of late the proceedings of the House had been such, as not only to degrade it as a body, but also to degrade the country.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Pennsylvania was not in order in saying any thing disrespectful to the House of Representatives,

Mr WADDY THOMPSON called the gentleman from Pennsylvania to order, and hoped he would not be permitted to proceed without making an apology for the disrespectful and insulting language he had used in relation to the House.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Pennsylvania had risen on a motion to amend the journal, which motion was in order,

Mr. THOMPSON said he had been under a misapprehension.

Mr PETRIKIN Yes I am in order; I am always in order. He wished it to be distinctly understood, that he merely wished a correct statement of the facts as they occurred inserted on the journal. He wished nothing put there but what the officers of the House thought right. He thought all such proceedings of the House ought to be recorded, so that in case any member should be slandered or misrepresented to his constituents, there would be some record to refer to, by which the falsehood could be contradicted. He appealed to the House, if in relation to the transactions of yesterday, he had been fairly represented. No, he had not, and he wished to have the proceedings officially re corded, so that he might be able to vindicate himself from such misrepresentations.

After some desultory debate between Messrs. CUSHING, BRIGGS, GENTRY, and others,

The question on the motion to amend was taken, when it ap peared there was no quorum.

Mr. MCKAY moved a call of the House, and on that motion demanded the yeas and nays; which being ordered,

Mr. MCKAY, at the suggestion of several members, withdrew his motion for the call, and demanded the yeas and nays on the motion to amend.

Mr. MONROE moved to lay the motion to amend on the table.

On this motion, Mr. DUNCAN demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and resulted as follows: yeas 58, nays 83. So the motion to lay on the table was rejected.

And the question then recurring on the motion to amend, The proposition to amend, was then read as follows, viz: "The SPEAKER calls Mr. GENTRY to order for irrelevancy in debate.

"Mr. PETRIKIN objected to Mr. GENTRY's proceeding out of order.

"Leave, by unanimous consent, was then given to Mr. [GEN TRY to proceed.

"Mr. PETRIKIN called Mr. GENTRY to order, and sent his objections, in writing, to the SPEAKER's table, as follows: "The gentleman is not in order; what he is now stating, not being relevant to the bill under discussion. The opinions of members of this House, delivered in other places, not being au thority here, nor the campaign previous to the election of Mr. Van Buren in 1836, has no bearing on the present subject now before the House.

"The SPEAKER did not entertain the point of order, as it did not state the nature of Mr. GENTRY's remarks objected to by Mr. PETRIKIN.

"Mr. GENTRY, by common consent, proceeded again.
"The SPEAKER called Mr. GENTRY to order.

"Mr. PETRIKIN objected to Mr. GENTRY's proceeding. "Mr. WISE moved that Mr. GENTRY have leave to proceed, which was agreed to by the House."

Mr. SMITH of Indiana moved the previous question on the motion to amend; which having been seconded, and the main question ordered, which was, "Shall the amendment be adopted?" it was was agreed to-yeas 80, nays 57.

The House resumed the consideration of the question pending on the 16th instant, when the hour for the reception of reports expired, that the bill from the Senate, entitled "An act for the discontinuance of the office of surveyor general in the several districts, so soon as the surveys therein can be completed; for abolistring land offices under certain circumstances, and for other purposes."

The immediate question pending when the subject was last up, was the motion of Mr. TAYLOR to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole of the state of the Union.

Mr. TAYLOR withdrew that motion, and moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Public Lands, with instructions to strike out the amendment reported by that committee on Saturday last, and agreed to by the House.

Mr. T. made some remarks in favor of the motion; when Mr. HUBBARD maintained that it was unnecessary to recommit the bill.

Mr. TAYLOR said the House had agreed to the amendmente without proper consideration. The amendments took from the Secretary all discretion as to the propriety and inexpediency of consolidating the offices; and the effect would be to throw an additio al expense on those who wished to purchase lands in the districts to which the law was intended to apply. The House having agreed to the amendments, no other alternative was left to have the error corrected, which it had fallen into by adopting the amendment, than by recommitting the bill to the committee indicated.

The queston was taken on motion to commit, and disagreed to by ayes 40, noes 92.

The question then recurring on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, it was carried in the affirmative; and the bill having been engrossed, was read the third time and passed.

Mr. CRARY, from the Committee on the Public Lands, reported back to the House Senate bill entitled "An act supplemental to the act entitled an act granting pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands," approved June 22, 1838, with a recommendation of the committee that it do not pase.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi, rose to explain how it was, that the committee reported this bill, with the recommendation that it do not pass. For all practical purposes, this committee virtually numbers but eight members; other, and perhaps more important duties, always preventing the attendance of one of its members from its meetings. A deep interest was felt in this bill by the whole committee; and on every question affect. ing the principle, we stood four for, and four against it. Thus it was on a motion to report this bill without this recommendation, the vote stood, ayes 4, noes 4; and, the committee being equally divided, the motion was lost. A disposition was evinced by those opposed to the bill, to bury it in the committee, and to refuse this Ilouse an opportunity of expressing their views on this subject, and thus to withhold from a large class of worthy citizens, what justice and good policy impe. riously demanded. In this condition of things, the friends of the bill were constrained, in order to get the bill out of the committee, and thus afford the House an opportunity to act on this subject, to agree to report the bill with the recommenda tion that it do not pass. He hoped the House would reject the recommendation of the committee, and pass the bill.

Mr. WHITE of Kentucky moved to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and Mr. L. WILLIAMS moved to commit it the Committee of the Whole, and make it the order of the day for to-morrow, Mr. STEWART was in favor of immediate action on the bill, and opposed to committing it to either the Committee of the Whole, or the Committee on the state of the Union. The bill did not contain an appropriation, and whatever might have been the previous practice of the House, there was nothing found in the rules of the House which require the bill to be committed He hoped it would not be committed. If it was, it would be tantamount to its rejection, because it would never be reached.

Mr. LINCOLN contended that the bill ought to be referred to a Committee of the Whole. He directed the attention of the gentleman from Alabama to the journal of the House, where it would appear that a similar bill had, by a majority, been referred to a Committee of the Whole, and debated therein day after day. The rule of the House required that every bill involving an appropriation, should be considered in Committee of the Whole, and he would submit to gentlemen whether this bill was not one of that character. Did it not appropriate to the pre-emption settlers the whole difference between the amount of one dollar and a quarter per acre and the prices such lands would fetch in the market? Was not this appropriation of the public lands to pre-emption settlers a means of diminishing the revenue? Certainly it was; as, if the same lands were sold in the market, they would fetch ten times the price, and the Treasury would be benefited by the amount.

The very object of the bill was to grant lands to these settlers at a minor price to that for which they were sold to others. This was so plain that it scarcely needed illustration. But sup pose, for instance, a man had made a settlement in the West, and the spot he had chosen should in a few months afterwards be selected as the foundation of a future city. In a few years, and perhaps in a few months, the land for which the settler was charged but a dollar and a quarter an acre, might sell for a hundred dollars an acre. Were not such instances numerous, when the land, owing to such circumstances, had advanced to an enormous price; and yet this bill proposed to appropriate the whole difference over and above a dollar and a quarter an

406

acre to the pre-emption settler. Was it not, then, clearly an appropriation bill, coming under the rule of the House, which requires that "All proceedings touching appropriations of mo ney shall be first discussed in a committee of the whole House?"

Why, the very idea of an appropriation presupposed an ac Did not this right of pre-emption af tion upon the revenue. fect the revenue of the country? Did the Government not draw a great amount of money from the sales of the public lands? and if those lands were sold at a price much below their market value, would not that diminish the revenue from that Source? If the lands were thus given up, then the bill was an appropriation of public lands for the benefit of the pre-emp tion settlers, and therefore came within the rule. He challenged gentlemen to show a single instance when a bill of this charac ter had not been first considered in committee. Such was the proper and regular course-a course dictated, not only by reason, but by the rules and the invariable usage of the House, from the time of its legislative existence down to the present period.

Gentlemen spoke of questions of expediency; but, for his part, he had no idea of deviating from the old sale course. He had no idea of thus disposing of the public domain, and of leav ing it to the chance of having all debate cut off by the previous question. This was a bill of great importance to every section of the country, and ought, therefore, to have a full and fair discussion in committee and in the House; and he, for one, would not consent to a deviation from the proper course. He repeated that a reference to a Committee of the Whole was demanded by the rules and former practice of the House; and that to dispose of it in any other way, would be manifest injustice.

was no

Mr. CHAPMAN of Alabama said that he hoped the House would not commit the bill. He felt confident that neither the rules nor the practice of the House required that it should be committed. The rule requires that all bills making appro priations of money shall be committed, and he was willing to admit that the rule also embraced appropriations of lands; but this bill proposes no appropriation whatever, either of land or money. The gentleman from Massachuseits [Mr. LINCOLN] says that the passage of this bill is urged on the ground that the lands are worth more than, under the provisions of the bill, the settlers are required to pay. Mr. C. said it time to debate the merits of the bill, nor did he design doing so at this time, but he denied, as one of its advocates, that ground for its support, and would take issue with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. LINCOLN] on the fact that the public lands were sold to pre-emptors cheaper than to purchasers at auction. Mr. C. said if gentlemen would examine the history of the sale of the public lands, they would find that it sold for within a fraction as much under the several pre-emption laws as it had on an average at public auction, and that fraction above the Government price was sales; less than of the the increased cost so that in a financial view of the question, the policy was to allow pre-emptions to settlers. Mr. C. said, that so far from providing for an appropriation, if the bill were to pass, much more money would be brought into the Treasury than would be without it. He said that, instead of placing the merits of this measure on the ground stated by the gen. tleman from Massachusetts, the friends of the policy had sales brought that as the auction always contended, but little or no more than the Government price for the public lands, those who had made valuable improvements thereon at their own labor and expense, and thereby increased and facilitated the sale of other public lands, had, according to equity and common justice, a better right to buy from the Govern ment at the same price than the speculators at the auction sales, who, by combinations, scarcely ever give more than $1.25

per acre.

auction

Mr. C. said that he could not see the necessity for committing the bill. He had shown that it involved no appropriation, and thought it was equally clear that it proposed no new principle. It proposed to revive the pre-emption law of 1838 with some amendments, not, however, altering materially any principle then for the third or fourth time recognized by Congress. It had been discussed over and over again in both Houses of Congress and before the people, until every one was Mr. S. contended that it was perfectly familiar with it. perfecty clear to every member, that in the present state of the business of the session, the measure could not be acted on, if it were refused. Besides this bill, we have many other impor tant measures before the 11ouse, of general and direct interest with a majority, which would always ride over this; that while he trusted the bill was favorably considered by a majority, yet it was merely local, and directly interesting to the new States only.

Mr. C. said that as he considered it would be fatal to the bill to commit it under the circumstances he had stated, he hoped no friend of the measure would vote for the motion. For his own part he would consider the vote about to be taken as a test vote as to its strength in the House, and hoped every member would so consider it in giving his vote-that it was not to prevent free and full discussion that he opposed commitment, for he did not fear any debate or examination into its merits, but to insure action at this session, which he knew would not be had if it went to the committee.

Mr. WHITE of Kentucky said this was a mere question of reference, and the debate ought to be confined to the point. In the first place he contended that the bill ought to go to a Committee of the Whole, because such a course was in conformity to former usage of the House, as the history of every pre-emption bill would show. But if gentlemen meant to cast aside all former usage and precedent, and strike out into a new path; if they intended to lose sight of all former principles by which they had been governed, why it was high time that the country and that posterity should know it. If such was their course, it was time the people should know that the old elements of legislation had been broken up, and that a new light had burst fourth, and that nothing but novelty and change had come upon all.

The former usage, precedent, and practice of the House demanded that the bill should be referred to a Committee of the Whole. He did not wish gentlemen to rely on any statement of his to prove that this course had always been taken, but he would refer to the journal of the House, and callenge any one to produce a single instance, when a bill of this character had not taken that direction. He appealed to facts, and he was Was sure these facts would bear him out in what he had said. the old doctrine that the public lands were not the property of the General Government to be revived again?

He contended that this bill did contain an appropriation, and

as such, ought to be referred to a Committee of the Whole, in The diffe conformity with the former usage of the House. rence between the Government price, and the price the land might bring, when exposed to public sale, would be in effect an appropriation, and a loan to the person benefited by the pre-emption. Ifit were not so, why then the necessity of passing the bill at all. He could hardly have thought it possible that gentlemen should have asked the House to pursue such an unprecedented course in relation to this bill.

The gentleman from Alabama says this is an "old subject, well understood, and that there is no necessity for any discussion." He advances that as a reason why it should not be referred to a Committee of the Whole. But when the gentleman says it is an old bill, I ask him if he has read it. Has he examined the bill which he says there is no need of discussing? If he has, does he not see that the bill is based on three new grounds, and that it involves principles which swallow up the quintessence of all former bills? Does he not see that it opens the door wide, and invites every kind of abuse to walk in?

Mr. R. GARLAND said, in substance, that he was friendly to the passage of the bill, and always had been in favor of preemption acts; and dated his support of the measure farther back than those who were so anxious to override the rules of the House to come to action upon it. He contended that, by the rule, it should be committed. It was a proposition to dispose of the public lands, through the pre-emption right, at a much less rate than they might be sold for at public auction. It was a measure, therefore, which, to that extent, affected the reHe was not, however, friendly to the bill in favor of doing away with the former practices of the House on similar bills.

venue.

Mr. WELLER said he did not believe that the merits of a bill should be discussed on a question of reference; and for the purpose of bringing the House to a vote, he moved the previous question.

Mr. CASEY inquired of the CHAIR what would be the operation of the previous question; whether it would bring the House to a vote on the motion to commit the bill, or on ordering it to be engrossed.

The CHAIR said that would entirely depend on the questiou whether the bill contained an appropriation, and whether it reHe said he had been inquired by the rule to be committed. formed by the Chief Clerk, that although it had been customary to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the tate of the Union, in one instance the House had decided otherwise, and the Clerk was now looking for the precedent; but if the bill was one which ought not to go to a Committee of the Whole, the previous question would be on the engrossment. If he was now called upon to decide, he must decide that the previous question, if sustained, would bring the House to a vote

on the motion to commit.

Mr. CASEY said if the SPEAKER SO decided that this bill must go to Committee of the Whole, under the rule, he should deem it his duty to take an appeal. He was aware thta former Speaker had decided that a bill making an appropriation of land must be so referred, but this bill made no such appro priation. He hoped the SPEAKER Would look to former decisions on this subject.

The SPEAKER had hoped some gentleman would appeal. The point had been referred to him as a question of order, and his decision was that if the bill proposed to give to settlers all over the price of one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre, then it must be an appropriation bili; but if it proposed only to sell the lands for what they would fetch, it was not an appropriation bill.

The question being on the appeal,

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. HOPKINS moved to lay the whole subject on the table Mr. CASEY demanded the yeas and nays; which were orde red

Mr. JAMES GARI AND moved a call of the House; and, on that motion,

Mr. WISE demanded the yeas and nays; which, having been ordered, were-yeas 60, nays 113.

So a call was refused.

On motion of Mr. ATHERTON, the morning hour having expired, the House then passed to the orders of the day.

Senate bills on the Speaker's table were then taken up, read twice, and appropriately committed.

The SPEAKER announced that the business next in order was the bill to secure the freedom of elections, and to provide for the faithful administration of the Executive patronage. The question being, "Shall the bill be rejected?"

Mr. BROWN, who was entitled to the floor, analyzed the various provisions of the bill, and argued that it was the same in spirit as the bill introduced into the other end of the Capitol, by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CRITTENDE.] and which was rejected by that body, there being bu 8 votes in favor of its passage. And the same spirit, he said, ran through that bill and the bill, now before the House, as ran through the old sedition law. The bill while it professed to be in favor of full liberty, its object in fact was slavery in its most odious form. He appealed to his colleague (Mr. BELL] whether he was willing to advance the most worthy and mest prominent of his fellow-citizens to a position where they would be disfranchised-where they dared not as freemen speak out and act out their principles. He asked, was that freedom which thus tied up a portion of his fellow citizens? Mr. B. said he would strenuously oppose this bill if it disfranchised one of the citizens of his State, as if it proposed to disfranchise the whole.

County towns

tion law. The hour of half past two having arrived, the House took a recess.

EVENING SESSION.

Mr. BROWN resumed his remarks, and, in the course of his speech, referred to the political course of Mr. BELL, more particularly on the subject of Abolition. He showed, by a reference to the records, that previous to the Harrisburg nomination, that gentleman was ultra in his opposition to Abolition petitions; but that subsequently he had changel his course, and gone so far as to recommend a reference of such petitions to a committee, with instructions to report thereon.

Mr. DAVIS of Pennsylvania obtained the floor. He said he did not wish to make a speech, but to save the time of the House, and the money of the nation; and moved the previous question; which was seconded, and,

On the question, "Shall the main question be now put?" Mr. TURNEY dem nded the yeas and nays; which, having been ordered, were, yeas 92, nays 53, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Burke, W. O. Butler, Carr, Carroll, Chapman, Coles, Conner, Mark A. Cooper, Craig, Dana, John Davis, John W. Davis, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Floyd, Gerry, Hammond, Hand, J. Hastings, Hawkins, Hillen, Holleman, Hook, Hopkins, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Keim, Kemble, Kille, Leadbetter, Leonard, Lucas, McClellan, McKay, Mallory. Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Calvary Morris, Newhard, Parrish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rives, Robinson, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Stark weather, Steenrod, Strong, Sumter, Swearingen, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Wil liams, and Worthington-92.

NAYS-Messrs. Andrews, Baker, Bell, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, Calhoun, Wm. B. Campbell, Casey, Chinn, Cushing, E. Davies, Garret Davis, Deberry, Dellet, Everett, Fillmore, James Garland, Goggin, Goode, Hall, William S. Hastings, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Ogden Hoffman, Hunt, Kempshall, Lincoln, Mitchell, Morgan, Nisbet, Palen, Pope, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Ridgway, Russell, Sergeant, Si monton, Stanly, Stuart, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Toland, Underwood, Warren, John White, Thomas W. Willians, Jo seph L. Williams, Christopher H. Williams, and Wise-53. So the main question was ord red.

The question being now on the rejection of the bill, and the yeas and nays having been asked, were ordered, and were, yeas 108, nays.53, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Judson Allen, Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Blackwell, Briggs, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, William O. Butler, John Campbell, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, Conner, Mark A. Cooper, William R. Cooper, Craig. Cushing, Dana, John Davis, John W. Davis, Doan, Doig Dromgoole, Duncan. Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Floyd, James Garland, Gerry, Goggin, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hillen, Holle. man, Hook, Hopkins, Howard, Thomas B. Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Keim, Kemble, Kille, Leadbetter, Leonard, Lewis, Lucas, McClellan, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Pettikin, Pope, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rives, Robinson, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Sumter, Swear ingen, Taylor. Francis Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Underwood, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Warren, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, Joseph L. Williams, and Worthington-108.

NAYS-Messrs. Andrews, Barnard, Bell, Bond, Brockway, Anson Brown, Calhoun, William B. Campbell, Chinn, James Cooper, Cranston, Davies, Garret Davis, Deberry, Dellet, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, Gentry, Giddings, Patrick G. Goode, Hiland Hall, Hawes, Henry, Hoffman, Hiram P. Hunt, Kempshall, Lincoln, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Osborne, Palen, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Ridgway, Russell, Saltonstall, Sergeant, Simonton, Slade Truman Smith, Stanly, Taliaferro, Toland, Triplett, Peter J. Wagner, John White, Thomas W. Williams, Lewis Williams, Christopher H. Williams, and

Wise-53.

So the bill was rejected.

Mr. ATHERTON moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. STANLY demanded the yeas and nays; which were or. dered, but Mr. S. withdrew his motion.

The motion of Mr. ATHERTON was agreed to; and the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. BANKS in the chair.

Mr. ATHERTON moved to take up the Sub-Treasury bill. Mr. WISE moved to take up the Naval appropriation bill. The question being put on the motion of Mr. ATHERTON. On motion of Mr. STANLY. the question was taken by tel. lers, (Messrs. UNDERWOOD and RAMSEY acting as such) and re sulted, ayes 101, nays 64.

Mr. CUSHING moved to strike out the enacting clause of the bill; but, before proceeding with his remarks, he wished to make a suggestion to the gentleman from New Hampshire, (Mr. ATHERTON,) under whose immediate custody the bill appeared to be, he having made every motion for taking it up. This bill was a very important measure-indeed, it was the measure of the Administration; and yet it had come before the House from the Committee of Ways and Means, without any report or ex position of their view a, to show why this projet of law should be adopted. And if the gentleman from New Hampshire desired to make any explanations or expositions, he (Mr. C.) was very ready to yield the floor, to give him that opportunity, Nay, he was not only ready to yield the floor, but he proffered it to him, and invited an exposition of the bill.

Mr. ATHERTON said he duly appreciated the courtesy of the gentleman from Massachusetts in thus politely offering to yield the floor. All he had to say, however, was, that this was

not a new measure, either to members of the House or to the country. It had been several times recommended by the Presi dent in his annual message, and there had been two reports in each branch of Congress on the general merits of the bill. Not only so, but he would refer to remarks made by a gentle man of the Opposition the other day, "that every member of this House was sent here by his constituents, either for or against this bill." The majority of the committee, (and he believed a majority of the House,) had now determined to take up

IN SENATE,

THURSDAY, May 21, 1840.

Mr. STURGEON presented two memorials from citizens of Philadelphia, praying the remodification of the tariff on the basis of that of 1824; which were ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. WRIGHT presented the petition of Alley, Staunton, and Co. merchants of New York, praying a remission of the duties upon certain goods destroyed by fire while in the custody of the collector of that port; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. PIERCE, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred

The petition of William Ferguson;
The petition of Elizabeth Garrabrants;

The petition of the widow of Samuel Walker;
The petition of Jacob Hall;

made adverse reports thereon; which were ordered to be printed.

Mr. P. also asked that the Committee on Pensions be discharged from the further consideration of the claim of E. Shaler, and the memorial of Conrad Walts; which was agreed to.

Mr. PRENTISS, from the Committee on Pensions, asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Thomas Farrar; which was agreed to.

Mr. LINN, in pursuance of notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill for the relief of Edward Criddle; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. WILLIAMS, in pursuance of notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to regulate enlistments into the army and navy; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

MI. WILLIAMS submitted the following resolution for consideration:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be directed to appoint a board consisting of navy and marine officers, to witness an exhibition of Nighill Nutting's patent cylinder fire arms, and report the results in detail for the information of Congress, together with their opinion of the advantages to be derived from the adoption of the same into the naval service.

Mr. STRANGE gave notice that to morrow he would ask leave to introduce a bill making certain appropriations for the Patent Office.

Mr. WILLIAMS gave notice that he would ask leave to introduce a bill in addition to an act regulating the pay of the navy.

its

The bill for the relief of Avery, Saltmarsh, and Company, was taken up on its third reading, and passage was advocated by Messrs. ROBINSON, LUMPKIN, and PRENTISS, and opposed by Messrs. WHITE, HUBBARD, CALHOUN, and DAVIS, and was then laid on the table for the present.

The report of the Committee on Claims adverse to the petition of William and James Crook, was then taken up, and was discussed at much lengthMessrs. WRIGHT, HUBBARD, WALKER, and CALHOUN sustaining the report of the commitee, and Messrs. CLAY of Ky. KNIGHT, HENDERSON, and WEBSTER, advocating the claim of the petitioner; when,

On motion by Mr. HUBBARD, the further consideration of the whole subject was indefinitely postponed-ayes 25, noes 14, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Calhoun, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Lumpkin, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Williams, Wright, and Young-25.

NAYS-Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Dizon, Knight, Porter, Prentiss,

Preston, Smith of Indiana, Spence, Tallmadge, Webster, and White-14.

GENERAL BANKRUPT LAW.

The bil to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy being taken up, after some remarks by Messrs. HUBBARD, CLAYTON, LUMPKIN, CLAY of Kentucky, WALKER, WEBSTER, and TALLMADGE,

On motion by Mr. TALLMADGE, the further consideration of the bill was postponed until to-

morrow.

And the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
THURSDAY, May 21, 1810.

The SPEAKER announced that the first business in order was the Senate bill reported back from the Committee on the Public Lands, entitled "An act supplemental to an act entitled an act granting pre-emption rights to the settlers on the public lands,' approved June 22, 1838. The motions pending on said bill were those of Mr. WHITE of Kentucky, to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and the motion of Mr. L. WILLIAMS to commit it to the Commit tee of the Whole, and make it the order for to-morrow.

Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland moved a call of the House; which was ordered, and was proceeded in until 136 members. had answered to their names. The list of absentees were called, over, when the following gentlemen were excused by the House on account of absence from the city, and indisposition, viz. Messrs. ADAMS, ANDERSON of Kentucky, BOTTS, BOYD,, BREWSTER, MCCARTY, FILLMORE, GRANGER, JONES of Virginia, LAWRENCE, MEDILL, TAYLOR, PECK, PICKENS, RODGERS, WILLIAMS of Kentucky.

Mr. SMITH of Maine moved that the following gentlemen, acting on the Committee on the Militia, now in session, be excused, viz. Messrs. KEIM, GOODE, RODGERS of New York, RIDGEWAY, GRIFFIN, WAGONER; which motion was disa greed to.

The call of the list of absentees having been completed, and 163 members having answered to their names,

Oa motion of Mr. WELLER, all further proceeding in the call was dispensed with-ayes 92, noes 40.

The question immediately pending when the bill was up on yesterday, was the motion of Mr. HOPKINS to lay the bill on the table.

The yeas and nays having been ordered on said motion, were taken, and were-yeas 53, nays 122. as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, J. W. Allen, Banks, Bond, Briggs, Sampson II. Butler, Calhoun, Connor, James Cooper, Cranston, Edward Davies, Dawson, Deberry, Evans, Everett, James Garland, Goggin, Griffin, Grinnel, Habersham, Wm. S. Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Hopkins, Hunt, James, Jenifer, Kempshall, Lincoln, McCarty, Mitchell, Monroe. Montgomery, Nisbet, Ogle, Osborne, Randolph. Ray. ner, Russell, Samuels, Shepard, Slade, Stanly, Storrs, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Trumbull,Warren, John White, and Lewis Williams-53.

NAYS-Messrs. Alford, Hugh J. Anderson, Andrews, Atherton, Beatty, Beirne, Beil, Black, Blackwell, Burke, William O. Butler, William B. Campbell, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chap. man, Chinn. Clifford, Colquitt, Mark A. Cooper, William R. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, Crary, Crockett, Cross, Cushing, Dana, Davee, John Davis, J. W. Davis, G. Davis, Dickerson, Dellet, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Edwards. Fine, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Gentry, Gerry, Goode, Green, Hall, Hammond, Hand, J. Hastings, Henry, Holmes, Hook, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Chas. Johnsten, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Keim, Kille, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloh, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Marvin, Miller, Montanya, Morgan, Sanuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parrish, Parmenter, Paynter, Petrikin, Prentiss, Proffit, Ramsey, Rariden, Reynolds, Ridgway, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Sergeant, Shaw, Simonton, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Tay, lor, Francis Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Triplett, TurneyUnderwood, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Peter J. Wagner, Weller, Edward D. White, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Joseph L. Williams-122,

So the bill was not laid on the table.

The question then recurring on the appeal taken by Mr. CASEY on yesterday from the decision of the CHAIR, that the bill required commitment,

The SPEAKER said the question was on the appeal from his decision on yesterday, that the bill ought to go to a Conmittee of the Whole. On yesterday he had made that decision according to his own construction of the rule, as he believed it was in accordance with the previous practice of the House. But since then he had discovered that in 1831, a pre-emption bill hed passed through the House without being committed to a Committee of the Whole. That being the case, he would reverse his decision of yesterday, so that the previous question instead of being on the commitment, would be on ordering the engrossment of the bill for a third reading.

Mr. LINCOLN understood the SEAKER to decide then that according to the former practice of the House, the previous question would apply to the engrossment.

The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative.

Mr. LINCOLN said he considered it his duty to take an ap peal from that decision, and wished to say a few words in sup.. port thereof, but the previous question having been ordered, the CHAIR informed him that no debate could be enter tained.

After a desultory conversation between Messrs. BRIGGS, LINCOLN, CASEY, DROMGOOLE, UNDERWOOD, and others,

The question being on the appeal, the main question was ordered to be put.

Mr. JAMESON asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

And the main question, "Shall the decision of the CHAIR stand as the ament of the House?" was decided as follows: yeas 100. nays 91.

YEAS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Beatty, Black, Blackwell, Aaron V. Brown, Burke, William O. Butler, John Campbell, Carr, Casey, Chapman, Chinn, Clifford, Mark A.

Cooper, William R. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, Crary, Crockett, Cross, Cushing, Davee, Davies, John Davis, John W. Davis, Dickerson. Dosn, Doig, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, James Garland, Gerry, Goode, Hammand, Hand, John Hastings, Henry, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Keim, Kille, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McCarty, McClellan, McCulloh, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, Newhard, Parrish, Parmenter, Parris, retrikin, Pope, Prentiss, Proffit, Rariden, Reynolds, Ridgway, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Shaw, Simonton, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Swearingen, Sweeny, Taylor, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Weller, Wick, J. W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Joseph L. Wil. liams-100.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Alford, Andrews, Banks, BakerBarnard, Beirne, Bell, Bond, Botts, Briggs, Brockway, Samp, son H. Butler, Calhoun, William B. Campbell, Carroll, ColesConnor, James Cooper, Cranston, Curtis, Garret Davis, Daw, son, Deberry, Dennis, Dromgoole, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Rice Garland, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Graham, Graves, Green, Griffin, Grinnell, Hall, William S. Hastings, Hawes, Hawkins, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Hoffman, Hook, Hopkins, James, Charles Johnston, William Cost Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, McKay, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Nisbet, Ogle, Osborne, Peck, Ramsey, Randall, Randolph, Rayner, Reed, Rives, Russell, Samuels, Sergeant, Shepard, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Taliaferro. Francis Thomas, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Peter J. Wagener, Warren, Edward D. White, John White, and Lewis Williams-91.

Mr. UNDERWOOD inquired of the CHAIR whether it would be in order to move the recommitment of the bill.

The CHAIR replied that the previous question having been ordered, it would not.

Here the action on the bill was arrested, the morning hour to which it was confined having expired, and the House passed to the orders of the day.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, in compliance with a resolution of the House of the 28th Januury, 139, a supplemental report, showing the amount of compensation which has been received, whether by fees or otherwise, by the district clerks, attorneys, and marshals, during the year 1839.

On motion of Mr. CONNOR, ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

Also a communication from the Secretary of War, transmitting a report from the Ordnance Department, setting forth the causes which have prevented an answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives, of 11th February, 1840, in rela tion to the prices at which muskets, rifles, and pistols, might be made, and delivered to the United States, &c.

On motion of Mr. McKAY, ordered to lie on the table, aud be printed.

Senate bill, entitled an act to extend for a longer period, the several acts now in force for the relief of insolvent debtors of the United States, having been returned from the Senate with amendments,

Mr. SARGEANT said the amendments were merely correc. tions of errors, and quite consistent with the amendments of the House to that bill, and therefore moved that the House con. cur in said amendments; which was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. ATHERTON, the House then resolved itself into committee of the whole, on the state of the Union, (Mr. BANKS in the chair) and resumed the consideration of the Independent Treasury bill.

Mr. CUSHING being entitled to the floor, resumed his remarks from yesterday. After alluding to the importance of the me sure as emanating from the Executive, and its previous rejection at former Congresses, he expressed his disapprobation at the course now pursued by the Administration in again urg ing it. He intimated that, since its last rejection, the people had been listening to the voice of the tempter, and were now thought more favorable to its adoption. But he called upon the people to arise in their might,and cast aside the snare, lest, when it was too late, they would find themselves like another Samp. son, bound hand and foot, and delivered over to the Philistines. He complained that this great ineasure came up without any affirmative defence from the Administration. He said it appeared that this course of proceeding was equivalent to saying that the Executive found himself strong enough to pass it, and therefore did not deem it proper to make any affirmative defence. He contended that this was not an untried experiment. The fact was the experiment had heen tried by the Executive, and it had failed, and the House was called upon to sanction and make into a law that which had been tried and failed. He contended that this was but a sequel to the great State bank experiment of General Jackson, which had failed, and had involved the country in disgrace and ruin. That great failure had taken place when the present Executive came into power, and this Sub-Treasury scheme was adopted in its stead.

He complained that all the great appropriation bills had been thrust aside for the purpose of bringing up this bill. He al luded to the paramount importance of the appropriation bills which importance was implied by their precedence in the rules. He saw no necessity or reason why this bill should be taken up before other bills of far greater importance. He saw, however, one reason which perhaps had induced the Administration party to take it up, and that was the taunts which had been thrown out by the Opposition, that the bill would not be brought up. If that was the reason, then the bill was brought up merely to show the courage of the Administration party in the House, and not for the public good. He hoped, therefore, that the urgency o the appropriation bills would not be adduced as an argument for stifling debate on this bill. Mr. C. then proceeded to examine the principles of the bill, which, he said, contained two proposi tions, viz. for an Independent Treasury, and independent cur. rency. In discussing the question of relative patronage he tween the State bank deposite system and this bill, Mr. C. admitted that it conferred less patronage than the former. The House, at half past two o'clock, took a recess. EVENING SESSION.

Mr. CUSHING continued to address the House until a quarter to seven o'clock, when he gave way for a motion that the committee rise. The motion prevailed-ayes 60, nées 53.

The committee accordingly rose, when a motion was made by several gentlemen simultaneously for adjournment. The yeas and naye were demanded on this motion, and resulted as follows: yeas 69, nays 72.

IN SENATE,

FRIDAY, May 22, 1840.

Mr. CLAYTON presented a memorial of citizens of Georgetown, praying the recharter of the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank of Georgetown, and remonstrating against the passage of any act requiring the banks of the District to resume specie payments until a resumption by the banks of the State of Virginia and Maryland; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the memorial of F. R. Dorsett, made an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. H. from the same committee, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Edward Criddell, made an adverse report thereon; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr.WILLIAMS, on leave, and in pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill to amend an act, entitled "An act to regulate the pay of the Navy of the United States; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. STRANGE, in pursuance of previous notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to make certain appropriations for the Patent Office; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Patent Office.

The resolution submitted by Mr. WILLIAMS yesterday, was discussed by Messrs. KING, TAPPAN, CALHOUN, WILLIAMS, PRESTON, and DAVIS, and was then agreed to.

The bill concerning a seminary of learning in the Territory of Iowa, was read a third time and passed.

The bill for satisfying outstanding military bounty land warrants, was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

The bill giving the assent of Congress to the acts of Virginia, incorporating the Falmouth and Alexandria Railroad Company, and for other purposes, was taken up as in Committee of the Whole, and was advocated by Messrs. ROANE. KING, WALKER, and MERRICK, and opposed by Messrs. TAPPAN and HUBBARD, and on motion of the latter, its further consideration was postponed until to-morrow.

GENERAL BANKRUPT LAW.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States; and the question was on Mr. WALL's substitute for the bill.

Mr. TALLMADGE addressed the Senate at length in opposition to the substitute, and in favor of the bill; and its further consideration was postponed until Monday next.

Mr. PRESTON offered a resolution that hereafter the hour of meeting for the Senate should be 12 o'clock; which, after some remarks by Messrs. LUMPKIN and SEVIER, in opposition, and Mr. PRESTON, in support, was ayes 18, nces 19.

The Senate then adjourned to Monday next. YEAS-Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden, Dixon, Henderson, Merrick, Nicholas, Norvel, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Spence, Strange, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, Webster, and White-18.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Cuthbert, Davis, Fulton. Grundy, Hubbard, King, Knight, Lumpkin, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Tappan, Walker, Williams, and Wright-19.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, May 22, 1840.

Mr. ATHERTON moved to suspend the rules to enable him to offer a resolution proposing to make the Independent Treasury bill the special order of the day from this day at 12 o'clock, and every succeeding day at that hour, until the said bill shall be disposed of.

Mr. L. WILLIAMS moved a call of the House;

and on that motion demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered-were yeas 61,

nays 78.

So the House refused to have a call.

Mr. MORGAN demanded the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules; which, having been ordered, were-yeas 86, nays 88:

YEAS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Boyd, Aaron V. Brown, A. G. Brown, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, William O. Butler, Bynum, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, William R. Cooper, Craig, Dana, Thomas Davee, John Davis, Dickerson, Doan, Doig, Droomgoole, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Fisher, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Gerry, Griffin, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of N. C. Holleman, Hook, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Keim, Kemble, Kille, Leadbetter, Lowell, Lucas, McKay, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Newhard, Parish, Parmenter, Paynter, Prentiss, Reynolds, Rhett, Rives, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, A. Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Stark weather, Steenrod, Strong, Swearingen, Taylor. Francis Thomass, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vroom, D. D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Willianis, Henry Williams, and Worthington -86.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, J. W, Allen, Andrews, Baker, Barnard, Bell, Bond, Botts, Brewster, Briggs, Anson Brown, Calhoun, William B. Cam bell, Carter, Casey. Chinn, Clark, James Cooper, Crabb, Cranston, Cross, Curtis, Cushing, Davies, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Dellet, Edwards, Everett, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gentry. Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Habersham, Hall, Wm S. Hastings, Henry, Hill of Va. Hoffman, Hunt, James, Jenifer, Charles Johnston, Wm. Cost Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, Mitchell, Monroe, Morgan, Ogle, Osborne, Palen, Feck, Pope, Randall, Randolph, Rariden, Reed, Ridgway, Russell, Sal tonstall, Sergeant, Simonton, Slade, Truinan Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Stuart, Taliaferro, W. Thompson, Tillinghast. Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Underwood, Warren, E. D. White, John White, T. W. Williams, Lewis Williams, and Joseph L. Williams-88.

So the House refused to suspend the rules.
PRE-EMPTION BILL.

The unfinished business of the morning hour as the bill from the Senate, entitled "An act sup. plementary to an act granting pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands."

The question pending when the morning hour expired on yesterday, was on seconding the call for the previous question; which, if sustained, would bring the House to a vote on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland moved that the bill do lie upon the table.

On that motion Mr. WELLER called for the yeas and nays.

Mr. TURNEY inquired of the CHAIR, if the bill be laid upon the table, whether a majority could at any time take it up.

The CHAIR said that, according to the practice of the past session, it required two-thirds to take it up again. He was understood to say that, when in its order, it would require but a majority to take it up; but that it was not competent at any other time to take it up, except by a vote of two-thirds. Mr. LINCOLN inquired if it would be in order to amend the bill.

The CHAIR replied, that if the previous question be not sustained, it would be in order to amend the bill.

Mr. STEWART of Illinois inquired of the CHAIR if it was in order again to make the motion to lay the bill on the table, the House having decided that question on yesterday.

The CHAIR said it was in order, action having been had on the bill since that question was decided on yesterday.

The yeas and nays having been ordered on the motion to lay the bill on the table, were-yeas 65, nays 104.

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Banks, Baker, Barnard, Briggs, Sampson H. Butier, Clark, Coles, Connor, James Cooper, Cranston, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Dromgoole, Edwards, Everett, Fisher, James Garland, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Green, Griffin, Habersham, Hall, William S. Hastings, Hawes, Hawkins, Hill of Virginia, Hill of North Carolina, Hopkins, James, Charles Johnston, Wm. Cost Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, McCarty, Mason. Monroe, Montgomery, Nisbet, Ogle, Osborne, Palen, Peck, Randolph, Reed, Russell, Samuels, Sergeant, Shepard, Slade, Stanly, Storrs, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Trumbull, Warren, John White, and Lewis Williams-65.

NAYS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Andrews, Atherton, Beatty, Beirne, Bell, Boyd, Brockway, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Wm. O. Butler, Ca houn, Wm. B. Campbell, Carr, Carter, Casey, Chapman, Chinn, Clifford, Mark A. Cooper, William R. Cooper, Crabb, Craig, Crary. Cross. Curtis, Cushing, Dana, Davee, Edward Davies. John Davis, Dickerson, Dellet, Doan, Doig. Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Rice Garland, Gentry, Gerry, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Henry, Hillen, Holleman, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kemble. Kille, Leadbetter, Leet, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloh, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Marvin, Medill, Miller, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Newhard, Parish, Parmenter, Paynter, Petrikin, Pope, Prentiss, Proffit, Ramsey, Rariden, Rhett, Ridgway, Edward Rogers,

Ryall, Shaw, Simonton, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Stuart, Sumter, Swea ringen, Sweney, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Triplett, Turney, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Edward D. White, Wick. Jared W. Williams, Joseph L. Williams, and Worthington-104.

So the House reused to lay the bill on the table. The question then recurring on seconding the previous question, it was determined in the negative, on count-ayes 77, nees 82.

[If the previous question had been seconded, the next question would have been on the engrossment of the bill ]

The question then recurred on the motion of Mr. WHITE of Kentucky to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. CASEY said he looked upon the commitment of the bill as decisive of its fate. If the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union at this late period of the ses. sion, it will not be reached this session, and every gentleman who will vote upon this question is aware of that fact. He therefore called for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. RANDOLPH inquired of the CHAIR, if the motion to recommit did not prevail, whether the bill would not stand on the SPEAKER'S table, and ride over all the appropriation bills.

The CHAIR said it would not take precedence of the appropriation bills, but would be the first thing in order during the morning hour only, and would stand on the calendar as one of the bills on the SPEAKER'S table for engrossment.

The yeas and nays having been ordered on the motion to recommit, were-yeas 91, nays 100.

YEAS--Messrs. Adams, John W. Alien, Andrews, Banks, Baker, Barnard, Beirne, Bell, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, Sampson H. Butler, Calhoun, Clark, Con nor, James Cooper, Mark A. Cooper, Cranston, Curtis, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Dromgoole, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Fisher, James Garland, Gentry, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Griffin, Habersham, Hall, William S. Hast ings, Hawes, Hawkins, Hill of Va. Hill of North Carolina, Holmes Hook, Hunt, James, Jenifer, Charles Johnston, Wm. Cost Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, Lucas, McKay, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Nisbet, Ogle, Osborne, Peck, Ramsey, Randolph, Reed, Rives, Russell, Samuels, Sergeant, Shepard, Simonton, Slade, John Smith, Stanly, Storrs, Sumter, Taliaferro, Waddy Thomp son, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Underwood, War ren, John White, Thomas W. Williams, Lewis Williams, and Wise-91..

NAYS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Beatty, Black, Boyd, A. V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, William O. Butler, William B. Campbell, Carr, Carroll, Carter, Casey, Chapman, Chinn, Clifford, Coles, Crabb, Craig, Ciary, Crockett, Cross, Cushing, Dana, Davee, Edward Davies, John Davis, Dellet, Doan, Doig, Dunean, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fine, Fletcher. Rice Garland, Gerry, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Henry, Hillen, Holleman, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Keim, Kemble, Kilie, Lead. better, Leet, Leonard. Lewis, Lowell, McClellan, McCulloh, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard. Parish, Parmenter, Paynter, Petrikin, Pope, Prentiss, Proffit, Rariden, Reynolds, Rhett, Ridgway, E. Rogers, Ryall, Shaw, A. Sm th, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steen rod, Strong, Stuart, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Francis Themas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Worthington-100.

So the House refused to commit the bill.

[If the motion to commit had prevailed, it would have been tantamount to the rejection of the bill, inasmuch as the condition of the business on the calendar would have prevented the House from reaching it, or having any action on it, this session. It is, therefore, properly to be inferred that all those who were opposed to the passage of the bill, voted for its commitment.]

The question now recurred on the motion to commit the bill to the Committee of the Whole, to take its place on the calendar.

Mr. L. WILLIAMS, who made that motion, withdrew it.

The SPEAKER said the bill would now go over, and would be first in order on Tuesday next. Mr. LINCOLN offered an amendment to the bill in substance, so as to make it conform to the act of 1838.

Mr. GOODE offered the following amendment as an additional section to the bill:

SEC. And be it further enacted, That all persons being the head of a family who have settled and made improvements on any rart of the United States alternate sections reserved from sale on the Wabash and Erie canal or the Miami canal, in the State of Ohic, prior to the last day of November, 1835, be permitted to enter not more than eighty acres of land on which they have so as aforesaid settled and improved at the proper