unusual and unnecessary; when the question was taken on the amendment, and disagreed to. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-day.

The bill for the relief of General Daniel Parker came up in its order for engrossment; and

A debate ensued, in which CAVE JOHNSON participated in opposition to the bill on the ground that there was not the shadow of foundation for the claims, and, Messrs. LINCOLN, GOGGIN, and W. THOMPSON, participated in its favor, contending that the claims had been allowed to other officers under similar circumstances; and that it had received the unanimous sanction of the Military Committee. Before the bill was passed upon, the House, at the hour of 24 o'clock took its usual recess EVENING SESSION.

The SPEAKER took the chair at the hour to which the House adjourned.

There being but eighteen members present, the House remained in a state of quiescence for ten minutes; when

Mr. BRIGGS moved a call of the House; which motion was disagreed to.

Mr. McCULLOH moved that the House adjourn; and on which motion the yeas and nays having been ordered, were-yeas 5, nays 53, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Burke, Goggin, Holleman, McCulloh, and Petrikin-5.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Baker, Beatty, Briggs, Calhoun, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Coles, Mark A. Cooper, Wm. R. Cooper, Craig, Edward Davies, John Davis, Dellet, Doan, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Edwards, Everett, Gerry, Giddings, Henry, Howard, James, Charles Johnston, C. Johnson, Kempshall, Kille, Leadbetter, Lewis, Lincoln, McKay, Miller, Montanya, Parrish, Pope, Randall, Russell, Ryail, Samuels. Thomas Smith. Stanly, Strong, Taliaferro, Taylor, Toland, Wick, J. W. Williams, T. W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Lewis Williams-53.

Mr. BANKS moved a call of the House; which was ordered, by-yeas 34, nays 26.

The roll was called over, and 85 members answered to their names; and the list of absentees were called over till 114 answered to their names; when

Mr. BANKS moved that the doors be opened for the purpose of admitting those gentlemen who were outside the door; who he believed would make a quoram.

The list of absentees having been called over, the following gentlemen, who were not present, were excused for various causes, viz. Messrs. Andrews, Anderson, Adams, Brewster, Davis of Indiana, Granger, Hammond, J. W. Jones, Lawrence, Naylor, Reed, Rariden, Wagener, and S. Williams.

Mr. MARVIN moved to suspend all further proceedings in the call, which was disagreed to on a count, by-ayes 37, noes 45.

Mr. GRAVES moved that the Sergeant-at-Arms take the absentees into custody; but

Mr. BANKS having expressed a wish to debate that motion,

Mr. GRAVES withdrew it.

Mr. JENIFER moved that the House adjourn. Mr. LEWIS demanded the yeas and nays on that motion; which, on a count, were not ordered -ayes 39, noes 33.

The question was then taken on the motion to adjourn, and disagreed to.

Mr. BANKS said, by opening the doors, a quorum would soon be present to do the business of the nation; he, therefore, moved to dispense with further proceedings in the call; and, on that motion,

Mr. HUBBARD demanded the yeas and nays; which, having been ordered, were, yeas 55, nays 51.

So all further proceedings in the call were dispensed with.

Mr. EVANS moved that the House adjourn; but the yeas and nays having been ordered, he withdrew the motion.

The doors having been opened, and a quorum now being present, the House proceeded to business.

The question being on ordering the bill for the relief of Gen. Daniel Parker to be engrossed for a third reading,

Mr. GRAVES demanded the previous question; which having received a second, and the question

So the bill having been ordered to be engrossed, was engrossed, and read the third time and passed. Engrossed bill for the relief of Benjamin Fry, was then read the third time and passed.

The bill for the relief of Andrew Low, the assignee of Low, Taylor and Co. came up in its order on the question of engrossment; when

Mr. PETRIKIN, who opposed, the bill in a few remarks, contending that it had not received the sanction of the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means, and that it would take several hundred thousand dollars out of the public Treasury, moved to recommit it to the Committee of Ways and Means, with instructions to report as the committee may find the facts to warrant.

Mr. EVANS said the committee had given the bill full consideration-had reported all the facts in the case-and that it had been agreed to by a large majority of the Committee of Ways and Means; that, so far from the bill taking from the public Treasury several hundred thousand dollars, the whole amount of the duties paid on the goods (a part of which this bill proposes to refund) was but $44,000.

Mr. HABERSHAM made some remarks in explanation of the bill, and in its favor. Then

Mr. STANLY obtained the floor, and moved the previous question; which received a second.

Mr. BROWN of Mississippi moved that the House adjourn; which was disagreed to-ayes 39,

noes 54.

The main question was then ordered to be put. Mr. PETRIKIN again moved that the House adjourn; which question was taken by tellers, Messrs. GRAVES, and CHAPMAN of Alabama acting as such, and was disagreed to by ayes 60, noes 71. The question then recurring on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading,

Mr. PETRIKIN demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, were-yeas 80, nays

51.

The bill having been engrossed,

Mr. MARVIN moved the previous question on its passage; which having received a second, and the main question being ordered, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

On motion of Mr. DROMGOOLE,

The House, at the hour of 7 o'clock, p. m. adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SATURDAY, May 30, 1840.

Mr. ATHERTON gave notice that on Monday next he would make the following motion:

Resolved, That so much of the 127th rule of the House as is in the following words, to wit: "Nor shall any rule be suspended except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members present," be, and hereby is, so far rescinded, that the House may, at any time, by a vote of the majority of the members present, suspend the rules and orders of the House for the purpose of going into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The SPEAKER announced that the first business in order was the question of order raised by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CURTIS] against the reception of the report of the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. HILLEN,] from the Committee on Commerce, accompanied by a bill for the repeal of the law regulating pilots.

Mr. BRIGGS spoke in favor of the power of the committee to reconsider a vote, when

Mr. VANDERPOEL obtained the floor, said the question had been sufficiently discussed, and moved the previous question; which was seconded.

Mr. VANDERPOEL moved a call of the House.

The CHAIR said that motion was not in order, the previous question having received a second.

Mr. L. WILLIAMS, for the purpose cf gaining time, and getting a more full House before the question was taken, as it was an important one, moved that the House adjourn, and on that mo

tion demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered,

Mr. W. withdrew the motion, and substituted a motion to lay the whole subject on the table, and asked for the yeas and nays on, that motion; which having been ordered, were-yeas 18, nays

126.

So the House refused to lay the question of reception on the table.

The question recurring on the reception of the report of Mr. HILLEN, as the report of a majority of the Committee on Commerce, the question was read from the journal as follows, to wit:

"Mr. HILLEN, a member of the Committee on Commerce, to which was referred memorials from pilots in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, and Charleston, praying for a repeal of the law of March 2, 1837, concerning pilots, offered to make a report, as from said committee, accompanied by a bill to repeal the said act, and before the said report and bill were read,

"Mr. CURTIS, chairman of the Committee on Commerce, objected to the reception of the report, on the ground that it was not the act of a majority of the committee; although the committee in the first instance had adopted the report now offered to be made, yet it had reconsidered that decision upon the reference by the House of additional papers to the committee, relating to the subject; and had reversed its first decision, and directed him to make a report of a directly opposite character to the report now offered, which he was ready to submit to the House."

[This whole question turned upon the right of the committee to reconsider the vote adopting the report which the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HILLEN] proposed to make. Jefferson's Manual, which has been adopted as rules for the government of the House when not inconsistent with the standing rules, says: "When a vote is once passed in committee, it cannot be altered but by the House, their votes being binding on themselves." There was no standing rule with which this clause in the Manual could conflict, and consequently was the only rule, in this particular, for the government of the committee.]

Mr. RANDOLPH demanded the yeas and nays on the question of reception.

Mr. HILLEN inquired of the CHAIR if the question was not, whether the report offered by him from the Committee on Commerce, "shall be received as the majority report."

The CHAIR replied in the affirmative.

The yeas and nays having been ordered, were, yeas 86, nays 83, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Black, Blackwell, Boyd, Aaron V. Brown, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, Wm. O. Butler, Carr, Carroll, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, Craig, Cross, Cushing, Dana, Davec, John Davis, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Fletcher, Floyd, Galbraith, Gerry, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jos-ph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, Leadbetter, Leet, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parrish, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Prentiss, Reynolds, Rives, Edward Rogers, Samuels, Shaw, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Steenrod, Strong, Sumter, Swearingen, Taylor, Francis Thomas, Turney, Vanderpoel, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, and Henry Williams-86.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, John W. Allen, Baker, Bell, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, Ansoa Brown, Calhoun, John Campbell, Wm. B. Campbell, Carter, Casey. Chinn, Clark, James Cooper, Crabb, Cranston, Crockett, Curtis, Davies, Dawson, Deberry, Dickerson, Dellet, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, Fisher, James Garland, Rice Garland, Giddings, Gog gin, Goode, Graham, Griffin, Grennell, Habersham, Hall, William S. Hastings, Hawes, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hoff man, Hunt, James, Charles Johnston, Kempshall, Kille, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Naylor, Osborne, Peck, Pope, Randall, Randolph, Rayner, Ridgway, Russell, Ryall, Saltonstall, Sergeant, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Sorrs, Stuart, Taliaferro, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Warren, John White, Thomas W. Wil liams, and Lewis Williams-83.

So the report of Mr. HILLEN, as a report from the majority of the Committee on Commerce, accompanied by a bill for the repeal of the law regulating pilots, was received.

The CLERK was in the act of reading the report and bill; when he was interrupted by

Mr. RANDOLPH, who inquired of the CHAIR whether a motion to recommit was not in order. The CHAIR replied that it would be, after the bill was read.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, inasmuch as the rule,

which denies the right of a standing committee to reconsider a vote, was considered binding by many gentlemen, and the only way to get round it was, to receive the report and commit it, he ac cordingly made that motion.

Mr. HILLEN said there was no further mater, in substance, before the committee now, than there was when the report which was received was adopted by a majority of that committee. The subject had been before it for four or five months, and ample time had been given before the report had been adopted. Great indulgence had been given by the committee to those interested and who were opposed to the repeal of the act regulating pilots. The subject had been fully considered by the committee before the report was adopted. There was no new matter in substance referred, or proposed to be referred, to their consideration; he, therefore, hoped that the subject would not be recommitted. He called for the reading of the report and bill.

Mr. BRIGGS made some remarks in favor of recommitting. The House had decided that a committee had no right to reconsider a vote. He, therefore, thought it was important that the subject should be recommitted, that the House night receive the views of the majority of that committee; which, it was admitted, were not presented in the report just received.

Mr. HILLEN said it was the report of the majority of the committee.

Mr. BRIGGS said: That report has since been reconsidered; and the majority have adopted another report.

Mr. DROMGOOLE inquired of the CHAIR whether it was in order to recommit the bill until it had been read, and passed through its proper stage by

the rule?

The CHAIR said it was not.

Mr. TILLINGHAST was in favor of recommitting the report. The vote just taken was on the question of reception of the report that had been adopted by a majority of the Committee of Commerce at one time, but which had been subsequenly reconsidered. The vote was a close one; and he believed that if the naked abstract question of right in a committee to reconsider had been presented, the vote would have been different. He hoped the subject would be recommitted.

Mr. FRANCIS THOMAS rose to make a few suggestions on the subject. The question was the simple one of recommitment. But had it not been just ascertained that the majority of the committee were adverse to the bill, and had already prejudged the question? It would be foreseen that the majority of the committee was not then competent to deliberate upon the matter. With these facts staring us in the face, was it right for the House to send it back to the Committee on Commerce, the majority of whom had not only pronounced their opinion, but also their judgment on this case? Would not such a course be in direct violation of that maxim of the law, which said it was not right to give the lamb to the wolf to nurse? He appealed to gentlemen whether it was right to recommit this subject to a committee, of which the majority had an antipathy to the bill,

The morning hour having expired, Mr. T. suspended all further remarks.

MI. PROFFIT called for the orders of the day; before passing to which,

Mr. JOHNSON of Maryland gave notice that he would ask leave to introduce a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt in the District of Columbia.

Mr. ATHERTON moved to suspend the rules to enable him to submit a motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. PROFFIT demanded the yeas and nays; which, having been ordered, were, yeas 103, nays 80.

So the rules were not suspended: there not being two-thirds.

Mr. GALBRAITH rose to a privileged question. He said, since the votehe had given on yesterday in favor of the passage of the bill for the relief of General Daniel Parker, he had more fully examined into the merits of the claim, and was satisfied that that bill should not pass. The op

portunity was not afforded him to examine the question before the vote was taken. He therefore moved that the vote on the passage of the bill be reconsidered.

Mr. GIDDINGS spoke of the merits of the claim, and said it a bit of more importance than was apparent on its face-that it was an entering wedge to a class of claims of the same character. He said it was not based upon principles of law or justice, but its only merit seemed to be that he was en ied to the claim because others had received it in like circumstances. He argued against the claim.

Mr. COLES advocated the claim; spoke of the several favorable reports which had been made from the Military Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee, in its favor, as proof that there was great merit in the claim. It had also received the favorable consideration of the Departments years ago.

Mr. GOGGIN poke in opposition to the motion to reconsider, and

Mr. GALBRAITH in favor of that motion; when

Mr. LINCOLN advocated the claim; spoke of the favorable report of the Committee on Military Affairs in 1836, of which the now Vice President [Mr. JOHNSON] was the chairman. That report received the unanimous vote of that committe. He went into a history of the whole matter, and contended that the claim was one of merit unques tionably. If one should rise from the dead, ani speak with the tongue of an angel, the merits of the claim could not be made to appear more just or clear.

Mr. WADDY THOMPSON argued that every officer similarly circumstanced had received what was proposed by the bill to be given to Gen. Parker; that is, double rations. It was a question of justice and equity, if not of law, and hoped the vote on the passage of the bill would not be reconsidered.

Mr. SMITH of Indiana moved the previous question; which having been seconded, and the main question ordered, viz: "Shall the vote be reconsidered."

Mr. GALBRAITH demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, were-yeas 86, nays 63.

So the vole was reconsidered.

The question then recurred on the passage of the bill; when

Mr. SMITH of Indiana moved to lay the bill on

the table.

Mr. EVANS demanded the yeas and nays on that motion; which having been ordered, wereyeas 92, nays 64.

So the bill was laid on the table.

Engrossed bill entitled an act for the relief of John W. Bond and Oliver Perrin, came up in i's order; and after a few remarks explanatory of i's principles, by Messrs. EVERETT and HOPKINS, it was read the third time and passed.

The bill for the relief of John J. Roane next came up in order on its engrossment, when a debat: ensued, in which Messrs. HOPKINS and PROFFIT participated in opposition to the bill, and Mr. PETRIKIN in its favor; but before any action thereoa,

The House, at half past 2 o'clock, took its usual

recess.

EVENING SESSION.

After the recess the SPEAKER resumed the chair, when

Mr. EVANS of Maine observed that there was no quorum present, and that being the case, the SPEAKER had no right to take the chair, it being contrary to the parliamentary law. The parlia mentary law was, that if there was no quorum present, the SPEAKER ought to adjourn the House without any question.

After some debate of a conversational character between Mess's. EVANS and McKAY,

Mr. BRIGGS moved an adjournment. On that motion Mr. PROFFIT demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. EVANS again insisted that the SPEAKER could not, in accordance with parliamentary law, entertain a question on the adjournment. If there was no quorum present, he was bound to adjourn the House forthwith.

The question then being taken on the motion to adjourn, resulted as follows-yeas 46, nays 47. So the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. EVANS then called upon the SPEAKER to adjourn the House, there being no quorum.

Mr. PROFFIT read the rule which relates to the adjournment of the House.

Mr. EVANS referred to the Congressional Manual, and argued that the practice in the British Hous of Commons was for he Speaker to adjourn the House without any question, when it appeared there was not a quorum present. He therefore contended, that in the present case, there being no quorum, the SPEAKER was bound to adjourn the House, without any question on the adjournment.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Maine was partly right and partly wrong. The Speaker of the House of Commons could adjourn the House for want of a quorum without a question being taken; but the rule required him to remain in the chair either two or four hours first, he could not recollect which.

Mr. BRIGGS said as the House had refused to a'journ, he would move a call of the House. Mr. PROFFIT demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. PETKIKIN moved an adj urnment. Mr. PROFFIT said he was entitled to the floor, and objected to the motion of adjournment being entertained.

Mr. BRIGGS called upon the CHAIR to count the House.

The CHAIR did so, and reported 107 members present.

Mr. HOFFMAN renewed the motion to adjourn.

Mr. PROFFIT demanded the yeas and nays; which were not ordered.

Tellers were then called for, but refused. The question was then taken on the motion to adjourn, and decided in the affirmative-ayes 79,

nces 35.

So at half-past 4, p. m. the House adjourned.

IN SENATE, MONDAY, June 1, 1840.

Mr. BUCHANAN presented a memorial of citizens of Pennsylvania, praying for the imposition of a duty of foreign silk; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. LINN presented a memorial of the presi dent and trustees of the town of Green Bay; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. WRIGHT presented the memorial of the Bo. rd of Trade of the city of New York in favor of certain mod.fications of the proposed bankrupt law in favor of the creditor; which was read, ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

Mr. NICHOLAS presented a letter of the Secretary of the Treasury relative to the quantity and value of sugar imported, and refined sugar exported, during the year ending September, 1839; which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. TALLMADGE presented the memorial of citizens of the State of New York in favor of the passage of a bankrupt law; which was laid on the

table.

Mr. T. also presented a memorial of citizens of the State of Ohio, remonstrating against the use of bloedhounds in the Florida war; which was laid

on the table.

Mr. CLAY of Kentucky presented the petition of c.t zens of Ohio, praying for an increase of du ties on foreign silk; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. LINN presented the petition of certain citi zens of Stoddard county, Missouri, praying the establishment of a mail ronte; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office.

Mr. SOUTHARD submitted papers relating to the boarding pistols and rifles invented by Samuel Colt; which were ordered to be printed.

Mr. STURGEON submitted the following mo tion; which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Pensions be requested to examine and report on the claim of Mrs. Hannah Elmore, who claims a pension in consequence of the services of the husband of the said Hannah during the Revolutionary war

Mr. WHITE, from the Committee on Pensions,

to which was referred the bill for the relief of John H. Genther, made an unfavorable report theron; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. PIERCE, from the Committee on Pensions, to which was referred the bill granting a pension to Margaret Jamison, reported the same without amendment.

Mr. P. also, from the same committee, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Elizabeth Davidson, reported the same without amendment.

Mr. P. also, from the same committee, made an adverse report on the bill for the relief of Elizabeth French.

Mr. WALKER, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Mary Sroufe, reported the same without amendment.

Mr. LINN, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred the bill for the relief of the children of Stephen Johnston, deceased, reported the same without amendment.

Mr. L. also, from the same committee, to which was referred the memorial of the representatives of Wade Hampton, reported a bill for the relief of the legal representatives of Daniel Clark, Donaldson and Scott, and William Conway; which was read and ordered to a second reading.

Mr. L. also from the same committee, to which was referred,

A bill confirming the claim of Augustine Lacoste, to a certain tract of land therein named; and A bill for the relief of William Marbury, of Louisiana; reported the same severally with amendments.

Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill for the relief of John L. Bowman, and Enoch C. Noyes, reported the same without amendment.

The act to amend an act approved the 18th of January, 1839, entitled an act to amend an act entitled an act to require the judge of the District of East and West Tennessee to hold a court at Jackson, in said State, approved June the eighteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, and for other purposes; and

The joint resolution, authorizing the President of the United States to accept certain presents from the Imaum of Muscat, and the Emperor of Morocco, and to dispose of the same,

were severally read a third time, and passed.

The report from the Committee on Claims, in the case of the heirs of Robert Fulton, deceased, was taken up, and Mr. MERRICK addressed the Senate, at length, in opposition to the report, and in favor of the claim, but before concluding, the Senate passed to the consideration of the special order.

GENERAL BANKRUPT LAW.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States, and after several amendmen's had been proposed and discussed by Messrs. WRIGHT, CUTHBERT, WEBSTER, STRANGE, TALLMADGE, and PRENTISS—

Mr. CLAY of Alabama moved to strike out so much of the 18th section as proposed to include banking corporations. He did not intend to go at large into the discussion as to the power of Congress to embrace this class of corporations in the bill under consideration. It had been his misfortune to be absent during a considerable part of the discussion that had been going on, and, therefore, he had not heard all the arguments in favor or including them; but he occupied a position in regard to this matter which settled the question with him without difficulty. He represented a State which had seven banking institutions, the capital of five of which was entirely furnished by herself, and all the liabilities of which she held herself bound to re

deem. Of course he was not prepared to put the State of Alabama in a condition of bankruptcy. Of the sixth institution, his State held two-fifths of the capital, and appointed her portion of the direction; and of the seventh institution, two-fifths of the capital was reserved for the State, though not yet taken. By the laws of Alabama, no bank could be organized in it without her being interested in it. Under these circumstances, he could not vote for including

banking corporations in the bill, and he hardly believed that any honorable Senator was prepared to include banks so situated. As a friend to the rights of the States, and believing it to be indispensable to protect those rights, and preserve the institutions which the States considered valuab'e, he could not vote for a bill containing such broad language in regard to them as this did. Chartered by the State, responsible to the States, in many instances responsible to the Legislatures, and in all instances responsible to the judicial tribunals, the States had, also, in many instances received a bonus for the grants of charters. There were many instances of this kind in other States, and, at all events, some benefits had been reserved to the people for chartering these institutions. It was unnecessary to pass on to the other sections; this question was a test question, and he would therefore ask for the yeas and nays on it. The yeas and nays were then ordered.

Mr. CALHOUN expressed a wish to address the Senate on the subject; but as the hour was late, the further consideration of the bill was postponed till to-morrow.

On motion of Mr. BUCHANAN, the Senate took up and considered, as in committee of the Whole, the bill to carry into effect the treaty between the United States and Mexico; and it was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The Senate then adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
MONDAY, June 1, 1840.

Mr. CUSHING rose to a privileged question, but gave way to

Mr. WADDY THOMPSON, who asked permission from the gentleman from Massachusetts to make a brief statement in relation to some impor'ant communications from the Secretary of War to the Committee on Military Affairs, in relation to the troubles in Florida.

Mr. T. who is chairman of the Military Committee, proceeded to state that a communication had been received from the War Departments enclosing two letters from the head quarters of the army, conveying the lamentable intelligence that a vigorous attack had been made by the Indians, who had again conceatrated their force, in greater numbers than before. He desired that the communications might be read; after which, he was sure the House would agree with him in the opinion that the bill reported by the committee for raising 1,500 men, ought to be acted upon without a moment's delay.

The several letters were then read by the Clerk. Mr. THOMPSON again expressed his hope that the House would not hesitate a moment in acting upon the bill. It was simple in its nature; its provisions were by no means intricate, and one half hour would be sufficient to dispose of it. If there was any gentleman who might wish to say any thing on the policy of Government or other matters connected with the Florida war, there were several other bills to come up connected with on which such speeches might be made. Under those circumstances, he sincerely hoped that the bill reported by the committee for the ra'sing of 1,500 men, would be suffered to pas, without delay. It was a bill having the sanction of the Secretary of War, and although he would not say the measures it proposed would determine the war, yet he was confident it would do more towards bringing it to a speedy close than any other plan. He was sure there could be no serious objection to it, after hearing the communications which had been read, and which were calculated to arouse the feelings of every patriot. He was confident the House would not refuse to go into Committee of the Whole at once on the bill. He entreated it, nay, in the name of the suffering people of Florida, he demanded that action should at once be had.

Mr. T. concluded by moving a suspension of the rules for the purpose of going into Committee of the Whole on the aforesaid bill.

Mr. DOWNING of Florida wished to say a few words on this subject, in addition to what had been already stated by the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. D. stated that he had received letters from Florida, dated the 23d May, some little time

later than the date of the facts referred to by the Secretary of War, and which confirmed the accounts transmitted to the Department. He said that among other instances of outrage, was one where two wagons had left the city of St. Augustine, under an escort of five United States soldiers, but they had not proceeded above six miles from the city before they were attacked.

After reciting the particulars of this outrage, which were not heard by the Reporter, Mr. D. appealed to the House, whether, under this state of things, it could deny protection to the people of Florida any longer; when it appeared that not a man could leave his home without danger of an attack, and where no citizen was safe, but in a walled town? He sincerely hoped there would be no objection to taking up the bill.

Mr. COLES did not rise for the purpose of discussing the merits of the bill referred to by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, who seemed to be of opinion that it would not occupy the time of the House. He (Mr. C) was of a very different opinion. He considered the bill by no means simple in its provisions, but very intricate indeed, and which must necessarily create discussion. As for the communications from the Secretary of War, he did not consider the information transmitted of that importance which required immediate action, especially when it was considered that so many other subjects were demanding our attention. He hoped the House would not consent at pesent to go into committee on that bitl.

Mr. PROFFIT having called for the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules, they were ordered, and were-yeas 110, nays 94. So the rules were not suspended, there not being twothirds.

Mr. W. THOMPSON inquired of the CHAIR whether it would be in order to suspend the rules for this day only; if so, he made that motion.

Mr. ATHERTON suggested to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. THOMPSON] that, if he would permit the business to take its regular order, his object could be accomplished much sooner. This was resolution day; and, if he would permit resolutions to be received, that which he gave notice, on Saturday, he would offer this day, for the repeal of the rule, could be adopted in a very few minutes, and it would then require but a majority to go into committee on the Florida bill, instead of two-thirds. But if this resolution was not passed to-day, to give it into the power of the members of the House to take up whatever bill it pleased, it would not again be in order for two weeks to offer it, without a suspension of the rules, which would require a vote of two-thirds. Therefore, those who are in fact in favor of passing upon the Florida bill immediately, and without delay, would accomplish that object by voting against suspending rules at that time, for the purpose of passing the resolution indicated by him, so as to put it in the power of a majority of the House to take up the bill at any time. He hoped the House would not suspend the rules till the resolution adopted.

was

Mr. THOMPSON moved to suspend the rules for this day; and on that motion demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered and were-yeas 116, nays 85.

So the House refused to suspend the rules.

Mr. HUNT said whatever might be the views of gentlemen as to the policy of the managment of war, there could be but one view as to the sufferings of the people of Florida. He therefore moved to suspend the rules for two hours.

Mr. PROFFIT demanded the yeas and nays on that motion; which were ordered.

Mr. PETRIKIN submitted whether it was in orper to make this motion to suspend the rules for two hours, the House having refused twice to suspend for any time, on the principle that the major absorbed the minor proposition. These motions were evidently made to waste the time of the House, and to prevent action on the resolution of Mr. ATHERTON, which proposed to place it in the power of a majority of the House to take up this bill, or any other bill they may wish. This sudden sympathy by the Whig party for the suffering people of Florida was as unusual as it was unnatural

to them; and it was merely feigned for the occasion, to defeat the resolution above indicated, which, if it were passed, would place the business of the nation in the hands of a majority of the Representatives of the people, and thus take it out of the hands of this factious minority, who are now trying to defeat the resolution by the power they have under the rules-the power which it is proposed by the resolution to be repealed to-day. If the rules were to be suspended for two hours, or for the whole day, they would get up a debate on the bill and stave it off, for the purpose of defeat. ing other legislation. The people understand this stratagem of that party, and he hoped that the proposition to suspend the rules would be voted down, as it ought to be, by those who are sincerely sympathizing with the suffering people of Florida, and who are anxious now, as they have been anxious at other sessions, as well as at the early part of this session, to pass measures to alleviate their sufferings; but the majority of the House are powerless, and will remain so until the resolution to alter the rules, which is proposed to be offered by the gen. tleman from New Hampshire [Mr. ATHERTON] 10day, shall be passed.

The CHAIR decided that the motion to suspend the rules for a given time was in order.

The yeas and nays having been ordered on the motion to suspend the rules, were-yeas 101, nays 98.

So the House refused to suspend the rules.

Mr. TRIPLETT, in accordance with notice previously given, moved to suspend the rules to enable him to report the bill amendatory of the act granting pre-emption rights to the settlers on the public lands; which was passed by the House a few days ago.

Mr. ATHERTON inquired of the CHAIR whether it would not be in order for the gentleman to report the bill when his State was called, without any suspension of rules.

The CHAIR replied that it would.

Mr. TRIPLETT demanded the yeas and nays; which having been ordered, were-yeas 72, nays

121.

So the House refused to suspend the rules.

Mr. CUSHING, after some preliminary remarks, moved a reconsideration of the vote by which, on Saturday last, the House decided that the report of Mr. HILLEN, from the Committee on Commerce, in relation to the pilot law, should be received as the report of the majority thereof.

Mr. C. explained that, when he voted, on Saturday, he considered he was voting on the point of order, and not on the meris of the bill. If that vole was to be considered as deciding the merits of the bill, he should wish to change his vote; as, although he agreed with the point of order, he was against the bill. With the exception of some three or four gentlemen, he was surprised to see that the vote on Saturday was a pure party question. How that was, he did not pretend to say; but he moved to reconsider the vote, with a view of giving gentlemen an opportunity of again examining the matter. Mr. C. at some length, adverted to the extreme inconvenience of many of the rules in Jefferson's Manual, which had been adopted by the House.

Mr. CLIFFORD moved the previous question on the motion to reconsider.

Mr. GRINNELL moved a call of the House, and on that motion demanded the yeas anì nays; which being ordered, were-yeas 26, nays 128. So the call was not ordered.

Mr. PROFFIT moved to lay the whole subject on the table, and on that motion demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted-yeas 70, nays 120.

So the House refused to lay it on the table. The question then recurred on the second to the previous question.

Mr. PROFFIT having demanded tellers to ascertain that fact; and Messrs. CHAPMAN of Alabama and W. C. JOHNSON having been appointed such, reported that there were ayes 112, noes 51.

So the previous question having received a second-and the question, on ordering the main question, being next in order,

Mr. PROFFIT demanded the yeas and n

which having been ordered, were-yeas 118, nays 68.

So the House having determined that the main question should be then put-which main question was, Shall the vote on the reception of the report be reconsidered?

Mr. PROFFIT called for the yeas and nays; which, having been ordered, were-yeas 84, nays 108.

So the House refused to reconsider the voteMr. CUSHING, who made the motion to reconsider, having voted against it.

The House took its usual recess at half past two o'clock.

EVENING SESSION.

After the recess,

The SPEAKER resumed the chair. Mr. SMITH of Maine rose to ask if resolutions were then in order from the State of Maine.

The SPEAKER answered in the affirmative. Mr. SMITH. Then I wish to offer the following resolution, which I desire may be read by the Clerk.

Mr. STANLY moved to adjourn.

Mr. SMITH. I have the floor, and do not yield it for the motion to adjourn.

Mr. STANLY insisted on having his motion to adjourn put.

The SPEAKER decided that the motion to adjourn could not be entertained, inasmuch as the gentleman from North Carolina had no right to the floor to make the motion, the floor being in the possession of the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. SMITH said he was certainly entitled to the floor, and so long as he kept it, no gentleman could make any motion. He had risen in the first place and asked the SPEAKER if resolutions were in order from Maine. The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative. That being the case, he now offered the resolution he held in his hand, and on it he moved the previous question.

Mr. PROFFIT rose to a point of order. The gentleman from Maine could not offer a resolution, and move the previous question upon it before the resolution was read.

Mr. EVANS said he wished also to state a question of order.

Mr. DROMGOOLE objected to more than one question of order being entertained at a time.

The SPEAKER said that the point of order of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. EVANS] could not be entertained until after the point of order raised by the gentleman from Indiana should have been disposed of.

After some remarks from Mr. BELL in relation to the rules for governing such proceedings,

Mr. EVANS persisted in urging his objection, which was, that the rule required the SPEAKER to call for resolutions, whereas the gentleman [Mr. SMITH] had offered the resolution without such call.

The SPEAKER again reminded Mr. EVANS that but one question of order could be raised at a time.

In relation to the point of order raised by Mr. PROFFIT, after some further debate,

The SPEAKER decided that it had been his first impression that the spirit of the 23d rule required a resolution to lay over, if any member intimated a wish to debate it, although the previous question had been called. But in compliance with numerous suggestions from members in the House, the practice had been changed, and it was decided on the Monday before, on the Cumberland road memorial, that if the previous question were called and seconded, the memorial would not lie over, although a member expressed the wish to debate the motion to commit with instructions, because the previous question would cut off such debate, should the main question be ordered.

permission of that member, had a right to submit

the resolution.

Mr. ATHERTON here stated that he had given his consent.

The SPEAKER decided that the gentleman from Maine had no right to offer a resolution, notice of which had been given by a member from another State.

From this decision Mr. SMITH took an appeal, and on that appeal moved the previous question; which being seconded, the main question was ordered, and being put, the decision of the CHAIR was not sustained-yeas 89, nays 92.

The SPEAKER was about to divide the House to ascertain whether the previous question was demanded, when

Mr. BELL submitted the following as a question of order:

"The gentleman from Maine offered a résolution, and, before it was read or stated from the chair, moved the previous question. The point of order was, that it was not in order to move the previous question on a resolution before it was read or stated from the chair."

The SPEAKER stated that it was in conformity with the former decision and practice of the House, to move the previous question when the resolution was moved, for the reason that the member who offered the resolution was entitled to the floor upon it before any other could obtain it; and therefore it saved time, without violating the right of any other member, to enable him to offer the resolution, and call the previous question at the same instant, without going through the form of announcing the proposition before the floor was given him to demand the previous question upon it.

From this decision Mr. BELL took an appeal. The question being on the appeal of Mr. BELL, Mr. CLARK moved a call of the House. On that motion Mr. PROFFIT demanded the yeas and nays, which being ordered, were-yeas 48, nays 139.

So the call was not ordered.

The question was then taken on the appeal, and being put as follows: "Shall the decision of the CHAIR Stand?" it passed in the affirmative-yeas 118, nays 85.

YEAS-Mess13. Atherton. Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Black, Blackwell, Boy, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Sampson II. Butler, William O.Butler, Bynum, Carr, Car roll, Casey, Chapman, Chifford, Coles, Colquitt, Connor, Mark A. Cooper, Craig, Crockett, Cross, Dana, Davee, John Davis, Joha W. Davis, Dickerson, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, y, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Galbraith, Gerry, Grithia, Haintnond, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Holleman, Holmes, Hook, Hopkins, Howari, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kille, Leadbetter, Leet. Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloh, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller. Moaranya, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, New hard, Perrish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Pickens, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rhett, Rives, Edward Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Philip F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Turney, Vanderpoel, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Watter soa, Weller, Wick, J.W. Williams, Henry Williams, Joseph L. Williams, and Worthington-118.

NAYS-Messrs. Alford, John W. Allen, Andrews, Baker, Barnard, Bell, Bond, Brigirs, Brockway, Calhoun, John Campbell, Carter, Chinn, Clark, James Cooper, Crabb, Curtis, Cushing. Davies, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Dellet, Edwarde, Evans, Everett, Fillmore, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Habersham, Hall, William S. Hasungs, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hoffman, Hunt, James, Charles Johnston, Kempshall, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Naylor, Nisbet, Ole, Osborne, Pope, Proffit, Randall, Randolph, Rayner, Reed, Ridgway, Russell, Satonstall, Sergeant, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Storrs Stuart, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tulinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Underwood, Peter J. Wagener, Warren, Edward D White, John White, Thomas W. Williams, Lewis Williams, and Christopher H. Wil

liams-85.

Mr. BELL then demanded that the question, "Will the House now consider the resolution," be put, and stated that he desired to debate the reso lution. He also demanded that under the 22d rule, which provides that "all resolutions that give rise to debate, shall lie over for discussion," &c. the resolution should lie over.

The SPEAKER decided that the call of the previous question did not deprive any other member of the right to raise the question of consideration. This could not be demanded according to rule, until the proposition was announced, and the mover of the proposition might defeat this indispensable

26TH CONG.......... 1ST SESS.

BY BLAIR & RIVES.

Continned from No. 27.

Ight of another member by calling the previous question, if that is to be construed as cutting off the demand for the consideration. So far as the previous question precluded debate upon the resolution itself, it was no violation of the rights of any other member to permit the mover to call the previous question, because, under any view of the case, he would be entitled to the floor to make this demand, before another could get it to debate the main question. And here, too, he was sustained by a previous decision of his predecessor: "At the third session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, Mr. GRANT of New York moved a resolution, and demanded the previous question, when objection to the consideration of the said resolution being made, it was laid on the table, under the rule."House Journal, page 398.

This resolution would, therefore, lie over.

Mr. SMITH appealed from that decision, and on that appeal moved the previous question.

Here much confusion arose, froin many members attempting to speak at once; and it was some moments betore order could be restored.

The SPEAKER said the appeal was not debarable.

Mr. PROFFIT asked whether, in case the resolation should be entertained, and debate arose, it would not necessarily lie over. He gave notice that he objected to it

The SPEAKER said it would be quite time enough, when the question on the appeal should have been decided.

Mr. BANKS desired the CLERK to read the rule which related to notice of resolutions; which was read accordingly.

Mr. SMITH repeated his call for the previous question on the appeal, which was seconded, and the main question being ordered, the question "Shall the decision of the CHAIR stand?" was decided in the negative-yeas 94, nays 115.

The previous question moved by Mr. SMITH, when he submitted the resolution, was then seconded.

The main question was then ordered to be putyeas 119, nays 83, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Hugh J. Anderson, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Black, Blackwell, Boyd, Aaron V. Brown, A. G. Brown, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, William O. Butler, Bynum, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Coles, Colquitt, Connor, Mark A. Cooper, Craig, Crary, Dana, Davee, Joan Davis, John W. Davis, Dickerson, Doan, Doig, Droom. goole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Ga braith, James Garland, Gerry, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Hawkins, Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Hol eman, Hook, Hopkins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Kein, Kemble, Kille, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloch, McKay, Mallory, Mar chand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parrish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Pickens, Prentiss, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rhett, Rives, Edward Rogers, James Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, Albert Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Benrod, Strong, Sumpter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, Philip F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Vanderpoel, Vroom, D. D Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. WilLang Henry Williams, and Worthington-119.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, J. W. Allen, Andrews, Baker, Bernard, Bell, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, Calhoun, John Campbell, William B. Cam, beli, Carter, Chinn, Clark, James Cooper, Crabb, Crockett, Curtis, Cushing, Davies, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Dellet, Edwards, Evans, Everett, Fillinore, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Habersham, William S. Hastings, Hawes, Henry, Hill of Virginia, Hoffinan, James, Wm. Cost Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Naylor, Nisbet, Ogle, Pope, Proffit, Randolph, Rayner, Reed, Ridgway, Ruseell, Saltonstall, Slade. Stanly, Storrs, Stuart, Taliaferro, W. Thompson, Tilling. hast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Underwood, P. J. Wagner, E. D. White, John White, T. W. Williams, Lewis Williams, J.L. Williams, and Christopher Williams-$3.

The main question on the adoption of the resolution was then put, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 119, nays 87, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. H. J. Anderson, John W. Allen, Atherton, Banks, Beatty, Beirne, Black, Blackwell, Boyd, Aaron V. Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burke, Sampson H. Butler, William O. Butler, Bynum, Carr, Carroll, Casey, Chapman, Clifford, Colquitt, Connor, Mark A. Cooper, Craig, Crary, Cross, Dana, Davee, John Davis, J. W. Davis, Dickerson, Doan, Doig, Dromgoole, Duncan, Earl, Eastman, Ely, Fletcher, Floyd, Fornance, Gal. braith, Gerry, Griffin, Hammond, Hand, John Hastings, Haw. kins, Hill of North Carolina, Hillen, Holleman, Hook, Hop.

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1840.

-WEEKLY

kins, Howard, Hubbard, Jackson, Jameson, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, Nathaniel Jones, John W. Jones, Keim, Kem. ble, Kille, Leadbetter, Leet, Leonard, Lewis, Lowell, Lucas, McClellan, McCulloh, McKay, Mallory, Marchand, Medill, Miller, Montanya, Montgomery, Samuel W. Morris, Newhard, Parish, Parmenter, Parris, Paynter, Petrikin, Pickens, Prentiss, Profit, Ramsey, Reynolds, Rhett, Rives, Edward Rogers, James Rogers, Ryall, Samuels, Shaw, Shepard, A. Smith, John Smith, Thomas Smith, Starkweather, Steenrod, Strong, Sumter, Swearingen, Sweney, Taylor, P. F. Thomas, Jacob Thompson, Vanderpoel, Vroom, David D. Wagener, Watterson, Weller, Wick, Jared W. Williams, Henry Williams, and Worthington-119.

NAYS-Messrs. Adims, Andrews, Baker, Barnard, Bell, Biddle, Bond, Briggs, Brockway, Anson Brown, Calhoun, W. B. Campbell, Carter, Chinn, Jas. Cooper, Crabb, Crockett, Cushing, Edward Davies, Garret Davis, Dawson, Deberry, Dennis, Dellet, Edwards, Evans, Fillmore, James Garland, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Goode, Graham, Graves, Green, Grinnell, Habersham, Hail, William S. Hastings, Hawes, Henry, Hoffinan, Hunt, James, Charles Johnston, Wm. Cost Johnson, Kempshall, Lincoln, Marvin, Mason, Mitchell, Morgan, Calvary Morris, Nisbet, Ogle, Pope, Randall, Randolph, Rayner, Reed, Ridgway, Russell, Sergeant, Slade, Truman Smith, Stanly, Stuart, Taliaferro, Waddy Thompson, Tillinghast, Toland, Triplett, Trumbull, Turney, Underwood, Peter J. Wagener, Warren, Edward D. White, John White, Thomas W Williams, Lewis Williams, Jos. L. Williams, and C. II. Williams-87.

So the resolution was adopted as follows: Resolved, That so much of the one hundred and twenty-seventh rule of the House, as is in the following words: "nor shall any rule be suspended, except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the mem. bers present," be, and hereby is so far rescinded and changed, that the House may, at any time, by a vote of the majority of the members present, suspend the rules and orders of the House, for the purpose of going into Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.

Mr. PROFFIT then claimed the floor for the purpose of moving a reconsideration of the vote which had just been taken,

Some altercation here ensued between Messrs. PROFFIT and SMITH as to their right of the floor, which resulted in the SPEAKER awarding it to Mr. PROFFIT.

Mr. SMITH appealed from this decision. Mr. OGLE moved that the House adjourn. Mr. WELLER called for the yeas and nays on that motion, which having been ordered, wereyeas 85, nays 117.

So the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. SMITH of Maine said, for the purpose of saving the time of the House, he would withdraw the appeal.

Mr. PETRIKIN here rose from his seat and said he would aver that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. PROFFIT] was not in his seat when the result of the vote was announced by the CHAIR. He was stan ling up many minutes before he asked the floor. Therefore, according to the rule, he was not entitled to the floor; but Mr. P. concluded that he was entitled to the floor, having risen from h's place.

The CHAIR said he had recognised the gentleman from Indiana; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. PETRIKIN] could not be entitled to the floor, unless he took an appeal from the decision of the CHAIR, and the House reversed the decision.

Mr. PETRIKIN did not press his right to the floor.

Mr. PROFFIT said he wished to debate the mo tion to reconsider; and was about to proceed, when

Mr. BELL objected to his proceeding at that time, and founded his objection on the 224 rule, which rule prescribes that, on resolution day, such resolutions as excite debate must lie over.

The CHAIR said the question of reconsideration was a privileged question, and takes precedence over all other rules: therefore, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. PROFFIT] could proceed in his remarks.

Mr. PROFFIT then spoke at some length of the tyranny of subjecting a minority to be governed by a rule which gives it into the power of a majo. rity to pass to any matter of legislation they pleased. He argued that it was unconstitutional in principle, and that it would deprive the minority

VOLUME 8...........No. 28.

PRICE $1 PER SESSION.

of that protection which the Constitution had peculiarly guarantied to it, and which had scrupulously been provided for.

Mr. DR MGOOLE said he was willing the gentleman from Indiana should have all the benefit he could derive from his extraordinary speech. He would not dispute such laurels with him. All he had to say was, that it was evident no good could arise from prolonging debate in the present excited state of the House. It would be obvious that the sconer the debate was ended the better. He would, therefore, conclude by moving the previous question; which received a second, and the main question was ordered.

Mr. PROFFIT called for the yeas and nays on the main question, which was, "Shall the vote on the adoption of the resolution be reconsidered?"

The yeas and nays having been ordered, wereyeas 89, nays 116.

So the House refused to reconsider.

Mr. SMITH of Maine moved that the House adjourn, but withdrew the motion at the request of

Mr. CUSHING, who asked the general consent of the House to have the joint resolution of the Senate relating to the Imaun of Muscat, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations; but

Mr. STANLY objected to the reference; and then, on his motion,

The House, at 8 o'clock, p. m. adjourned.

IN SENATE,

TOESDAY, June 2, 1840.

Mr. SMITH of Connecticut presented the credentials of the Honorable JABEZ W. HUNTINGTON, elected by the Legislature of Connecticut, a Senator of that State for the unexpired portion of the term of six years, commencing on the fourth of March, 1839.

Mr. HUNTINGTON appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

on

Mr. HUBBARD, from the Committee Claims, to which was referred the bill for the relief of Gen. Duncan L. Clinch, reported the same with an amendment.

Mr. CLAY presented the memorial of James C, Reynolds, late postmaster at Reynoldsburg, Ohio, stating that he was removed without cause, and asking Congressional action thereon; and after a debate in which Messrs. CLAY of Kentucky, ALLEN, and CRITTENDEN participated, its further consideration was postponed until to-morrow.

SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United S ates.

The question being on the motion of Mr. CLAY of Alabama, to strike out all relating to banks and corporations

Mr. CALHOUN addressed the Senate at length, and in a very forcible argument advocated the motion, and declared his opposition also to the remaining portions of the bill-the voluntary part-as being, in fact, an insolvent law, which Congress had no constitutional power to pass; and the compulsory part as inexpedient, because of the destructive effect on the debtor portion of the community in the present disordered state of the currency.

The question then being taken on Mr. CLAY'S motion, it was agreed to-ayes 28, noes 16, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kenteky, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis, Dixon, Fulton, Huntington, Henderson, King, Knight, Lumpkin, Merrick, Mouton, Nicholas, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, and Webster-28.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Grundy, Hubbard, Pierce, Roane, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Wall, Williams, and Wright-16.

Mr. CRITTENDEN now moved to refer the bill o a select committee.