As to the observations made by the honorable gentleman from Georgia, respecting the amendments made to the constitution of Great Britain, they did not apply; the cases were nothing like similar, and, consequently, could not be drawn into precedent. The constitution of Britain is neither the _magna charta_ of John, nor the _habeas corpus_ act, nor all the charters put together; it is what the Parliament wills. It is true, there are rights granted to the subject that cannot be resumed; but the constitution, or form of government, may be altered by the authority of Parliament, whose power is absolute without control. Mr. SHERMAN.--The gentlemen who oppose the motion say we contend for matter of form; they think it nothing more. Now we say we contend for substance, and therefore cannot agree to amendments in this way. If they are so desirous of having the business completed, they had better sacrifice what they consider but a matter of indifference to gentlemen, to go more unanimously along with them in altering the constitution. The question on Mr. SHERMAN'S motion was now put and lost.[29] FRIDAY, August 14. ABIEL FOSTER, from New Hampshire, appeared and took his seat. SATURDAY, August 15. _Amendments to the Constitution._ FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE. Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert, "no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. He feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the sentence. Mr. GERRY said, it would read better if it was, that no religious doctrine shall be established by law. Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had no authority whatever delegated to them by the constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out. Mr. CARROLL.--As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion, that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the Government than almost any other amendment he had heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.