Mr. AMES thought the question would recur when the appropriation or collecting bill came before them; he would rather, for his own part, decide the question at this moment, than consume the time of the House with another debate. Besides the House was not in possession of an act for appropriating the revenue; such a measure might never be agreed to; therefore he hoped the decision would take place at this time rather than be evaded. Mr. FITZSIMONS was of opinion, that this revenue ought to be appropriated to the payment of the public debts; what were the views of other gentlemen he could not say. He was nevertheless in favor of limiting the law, and that upon constitutional principles, though he wished it commensurate to its object. Gentlemen had said a great deal respecting the imperfection of the system, that it was the effect of compromise; but nevertheless, he thought it as free from defects as it was possible a revenue system could be formed with such materials as the House possessed; but if it was imperfect, he did not see the difficulties some gentlemen mentioned, in altering and amending it when experience shall have pointed out its defects. Mr. BOUDINOT acquiesced in the motion now brought forward for the sake of accommodation, although he thought the bill would stand better without any limitation clause whatever. Mr. PAGE was against the latter part of this clause. It had been justly said, that the bill would be oppressive; but, from the necessity of the times, the people will submit to it. Shall we not let them see the end of their burthen in the law itself? Are they to look into another bill for that purpose? Perhaps after the Senate have agreed to this act, they may oppose the limitation in the subsequent one; they may insist upon having this in perpetuity, and then the object which the House have in view will be defeated. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, moved a division of the question. Mr. LEE wished to strike out that part of the motion which related to the exception. Mr. LIVERMORE seconded Mr. LEE. The question was put, and that part of the clause lost. The question now stood as originally introduced to the House. The previous question was then demanded by five members: Shall the main question be now put? And on the question, shall the main question be now put? it was resolved in the affirmative. And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the amendment proposed to the said bill, it was resolved in the affirmative--ayes 41, noes 8. The ayes and noes being called for by one-fifth of the members present: Those who voted in the affirmative, are,