Friday,]

tration, they sent four, from 1689 to 1692; two in 1692, and four from that time to the Revolution. It likewise appears that for some time the deputies were chosen semi-annually.

The general understanding was that, with the exception of Boston, the freemen of the several towns had a right, respectively, to send two deputies to the general court. But, in point of fact, a sentiment of natural justice seems to have prevailed, to prevent them in the smaller and less populous towns from exercising their full privilege. They seldom sent more than one. For instance, at the general court, on the 14th of May, 1656, thirty-three members appeared from twentyfour towns; on the 6th of May, 1657, twentynine members from twenty-one towns, and on the 19th of May, 1658, thirty-four members from twenty-four towns.

Instead of their claiming a representative right, it was necessary, all along to the revolutionary age, to inflict heavy fines for not sending deputies. The fines were usually added to the town's portion of the Province tax. The practice of the House of Assembly from the first to the last, as I might easily accumulate evidence to prove, was to regard itself as representing the whole body of the freemen, and not as representing an aggregate or congeries of towns. It acted directly, not upon the towns, but upon the freemen of the towns. Were not the sands of my hour rapidly running out, I would read to the Committee, what I hold in my hand, a very curious Act, passed in 1651, by which the freemen of the several towns were forbidden to send to the general court any but sound, orthodox men; and in case they should knowingly vote for a man unsound in this respect, a fine was imposed, not upon the towns, but upon the freemen themselves. I hand it to the reporters.

At a general court, held at Boston, October 18, 1654:

"Forasmuch, as according to the present form of government of this jurisdiction, the safety of the Commonwealth, the right administration of justice, the preservation of the peace and purity of the Churches of Christ therein, under God, doth much depend upon the piety, wisdom and soundness of the General Court, not only magistrates but deputies, It is therefore ordered by this Court, and the authority thereof, that no man, although a Freeman, shall be accepted as a deputy in the General Court, that is unsound in judgement, concerning the main points of the Christian Religion, as they have been held forth and acknowledged by the generality of the Protestant or Orthodox writers, or that is scandalous in his conversation, or that is unfaithful to the govern

ment.

And it is further ordered, that it shall not be lawful for any Freeman to make choice of any such person as aforesaid, that is known to himself to be under such offence or offences, before specified, upon pain or penalty of five pounds, and that the cases of such persons be tried by the whole General Court."

Down to the Revolution, and to a subsequent period, it was always understood, that the House represented, not the towns, but the freemen. See the language of the Constitution of 1780, in the first chapter, third section and first article.

"There shall be in the legislature of this Commonwealth a representation of the people, annually elected, and founded upon the principle of equality."

The second article begins thus:

“And in order to provide for a representation of the citizens of this Commonwealth."

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.-UPHA M.

The "people," the "citizens," "upon a principle of equality," and not the towns.

Now permit me, in further considering the practice by which each town was allowed in the general court but two deputies, to show how just it was, and how truly it was founded on the principle of equality.

I believe that my venerable friend and neighbor, the delegate from Beverly, (Mr. Rantoul,) who by his wisdom, not less than by his experience and years, is well entitled to be considered the Nestor of this body, alluded in my absence to this fact, that prior to the Revolution, prior in fact to a date somewhat subsequent to the close of the Revolution, the towns in Massachusetts were substantially equal, with the exception of Boston.

I have in my hands a document containing items copied from volumes in the office of the Secretary of State. It exhibits the amount apportioned as a Province tax upon several of the leading towns in the Colony. I have selected some dozen towns and have examined and copied the items in reference to five successive apportionment Acts, that is, in the years 1738, 1741, 1757, 1758, 1760. Now, Sir, that tax was apportioned upon the ratable polls, upon acres, upon land under tillage, upon cattle, upon money at interest, upon money in trade, and upon all the particulars which can go into a just valuation. And the result, I take it, must be considered a substantially correct exhibition relative to the size and ability of the towns.

For I beg gentlemen to remember that the whole of the towns of the old Colony of Massachusetts were after pretty much the same pattern. To be sure, the seaports of Boston and Salemalthough Salem was not always next to Boston -and to some extent Plymouth and Marblehead, were comparatively large places, and had some commerce, but all the rest were agricultural.

Well, what was a Massachusetts town? It was in territory from six to ten miles square. What did it consist of? Why, Sir, on the steepest, bleakest, most inaccessible hill that you could find, the spot for the meeting-house was selected, upon the principles of centrality, and a nicely-adjusted equilibrium of general inconvenience all around. They would not have the meeting-house where it would accommodate one section more than another, and therefore they put it in the centre, and very frequently it was, as I have said, on a location, in itself most undesirable; near the meetinghouse, almost under its very eaves, there was a tavern, a blacksmith's forge, and a grocery and variety store. All the rest of the town was occupied by a very sparse agricultural population. There was, of course, irregularity in the towns, in the earlier stages of their growth, but a merely agricultural town soon reaches maturity, and those long settled tended naturally to a great equality and similarity. Here I have statistics in regard to a number of them, and I am going to read the results. By these papers it appears that Ipswich-the old town of Ipswich, may still be seen, a venerable relic of early times-Ipswich, taking these five valuations together, was the next town in the colony to Boston. During the first two valuations, Salem exceeded Ipswich, but during the three last valuations, Ipswich far exceeded Salem. Ipswich, at that time, embraced Essex and Hamilton. Hingham, Scituate, Rehoboth and Bridgewater were at the three last dates

[June 24th.

larger places than Charlestown or Springfield, and always larger than Cambridge. Of course, in that day, there was nothing known of Lowell or Lawrence. As for the city of Worcester, she was not to be found among the largest towns. Lancaster was ahead of her all the time, and Sutton part of the time. Every-body can see at once that there could have been no glaring inequality among the old towns of the Colony, while Ipswich, Scituate, Bridgewater, Rehoboth and Marblehead, were nearly equal, some of them at times superior, to Salem. In other words, the towns, as a whole, were nearly equal, and it was no violation of justice to have them equally represented in the House of Representatives. Here are the figures in reference to the point upon which I have now spoken:

Apportionments of Province Tax.

The following table is made up from the appor tionments of the Province tax, for the years 1755 and 1760. It exhibits the average of the sums apportioned to the several towns and plantations, the largest and also the smallest sums apportioned to particular towns, in six counties.

The mean distance of the averages, from the largest and the smallest, demonstrates very strikingly the general equality of the towns.

Barnstable and Plymouth Counties stand now very much as they did then, the towns being still substantially on a level, the extremes not much, if at all, further removed from the mean average.

In Bristol County, Dartmouth, including what are now New Bedford and Fairhaven, rose much above the average.

Leaving out the city of Worcester, and perhaps the town of Fitchburg, leaving out Springfield, as also Charlestown and Cambridge, the residue of the old towns of the old counties of Worcester, Hampshire and Middlesex, remain to this day, relatively to each other, about as they were then. Probably no State or country has ever exhibited a greater degree of general equality than the fol lowing figures present :

Friday,]

The Committee on the Frame of Government have had a proposition referred to them to require the State census and valuation to be taken hereafter in the years intermediate to the decennial years of the United States census-that is, in 1855, 1865, and so forth. If taken in 1855, the growth of population, to this date, as I have calculated, will add nearly, if not quite, thirty new members; and, undoubtedly, before 1860, there will be more than forty added in consequence of the growth of the population of the State.

There is another consideration. The peculiar business of the Commonwealth, and the habits and associations of the people, are leading to a greater and greater demand for the creation of new towns. Those created for the last three or four years, average three and a half a year, or an increase of thirty-five in ten years, so that in the course of ten years more, if the formation of new towns goes on at the rate of the last few years, we shall have a House of from four hundred and eighty to five hundred members. This would be an evil, which could not and would not be borne. Gentlemen who sit in the comfortable seats in the body of this Hall, may think it all very well; but those of us who have to sit away back by the windows, can appreciate the inconvenience of a large House. We find there is a very great difficulty in being able to hear the strains of eloquence and lessons of instruction which proceed from the central part of the House. The space around the Speaker's chair seems, indeed, to be the only part of the Hall prolific of such articles. It is hard to raise them on the outskirts, or in the galleries.

I notice that the advocates of a large House occupy comfortable seats. I wish to call their attention to the situation in which some of the members of this body are placed. Will gentlemen be so good as to look at the diagram of this hall, and see the location of seats Nos. 313 and 314. Those seats are assigned to two distinguished delegates, who surely require as much room as any members of this body, and fill as large a space in our estimation, in all respects. One of them is the learned member from Lenox, (Mr. Bishop,) and the other my reverend, (I will not apply to him quite yet, as was done a few weeks ago, the epithet of venerable,) and eloquent friend and brother, of Brattle Street, (Mr. Lothrop). I submit, that it is an outrage upon the rights of the people to crowd their representatives into such narrow quarters. This is a matter which particularly concerns the small towns. Small towns, as gentlemen well know, will be likely to be represented, for the most part, by intelligent and respectable, but modest, unpretending and unambitious members, who, after all, compose the most valuable part of a body like this; but, as a general thing, they will not participate so prominently in the debates as some others. The leading debaters contrive, as I have intimated, by some means or other, to get into the centre and body of the hall, and the result is, that those who do not aspire to figure in debate, are crowded back to the extremities of the floor, or into the galleries. Now, I say that the members who are sent into the galleries, beyond those pillars, are

all but unseated.

We have had a recent illustration of this. The gentlemen of our body, who sit in the eastern gallery, finding that they could neither hear nor see anything going on below, appear to have or

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.-UPHAM.

ganized themselves into a separate Convention, and, being a small body, are able, of course, to execute business rapidly. The other day, the excellent gentleman from Boylston, (Mr. Whitney,) who seems to be their presiding officer, announced to us, on the floor below, that the members in the eastern gallery, acting as a sort of upper house, had come to a conclusion upon a question on which we had just begun to open a debate. [Laughter.] Gentlemen seated there are, in sober truth, substantially thrown out of this hall.

I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Massachusetts cannot be truly and adequately represented in a body greater than three hundred members. When we go beyond that, we begin to crowd them, and drive members out of the house, and this produces a thin and irregular attendance, and motions for reconsideration, and postponement, and other untold evils.

My friend, here at my side, (Mr. DeWitt,) suggests that the Hall might be enlarged. It is natural for him to entertain the idea of large dimensions, but enlargement would not answer the purpose. I am of opinion that we could not contrive a better hall than this. It is as large as is consistent with its use, as the place of meeting of a deliberative assembly. Gentlemen will recollect that at the early part of our session there was a good deal of complaint because this hall was not large enough, and we went down to the Music Hall. But after being there one day, we made up our minds that it would not answer to meet in a room of such dimensions, and we were glad to come back here. There is no better hall than this, Sir. I do not believe that you can contrive a hall in which you can seat five hundred members, without having some of them so inconveniently placed as to render them unable to participate, on equal terms, in the deliberations and proceedings of the body.

There is one thing more to which I wish to refer. If you adopt this system pro osed by the majority of the Committee, and have so large a House or anything like so large a House, in my opinion it will be extremely difficult hereafter to create new towns in this Commonwealth. The other day, the learned delegate for Wilbraham, expressed the idea that it is a bad thing to make new towns. On this point I take issue with him. I maintain that it is the right and the privilege of the people to have new towns when their convenience would be promoted by it. I think that there are localities in this Commonwealth where it is a wrong to deprive the people of the privilege of forming themselves into a new town, or to throw obstacles in their way. There are many large towns where, in old times, there was no occasion for a division, but since the manufacturing age has arisen, and the railroad age, villages have grown up in the outskirts of these towns, at their remote corners and near their extreme boundaries, villages which have different interests, in which case it is wrong to keep them bound together. I might refer to my friend from Dennis, or to the delegates from some of the other Cape Cod towns -Barnstable or Yarmouth, for instance-whose population is nearly all comprised in villages on the opposite shores, at some distance apart. I might refer to the delegate for Marshfield, whose local knowledge will perhaps enable him to corroborate my statement. The town-house in Marshfield is situated in a sandy desert, in the

[June 24th.

midst of pine woods, about the middle of the town, with no other building in sight but the almshouse, and nobody lives within half a mile of it that I know of. There are four villages, and when the people want to attend a town-meeting they have to travel miles, to this solitary spot. I might look at other portions of the State, and appeal to my friend from Deerfield, (Mr. Hoyt,) where the different parts of the town are far remote from each other-Old Deerfield and South Deerfield. There is Adams, which consists in fact of two large towns still united together, although some five or six miles apart. Other instances of this kind might be named, but it is unnecessary. The High School policy, which must not be abandoned, presses with what amounts to a hardship upon some forty towns, from which a division alone can relieve them. I believe that the interests of education, in many cases, would be promoted by such a division. We ought to be careful not to interpose obstacles to prevent villages from separating and forming new towns where the interests or business of the inhabitants clearly require it. Take away the separate representative right, and there is no objection to the multiplication of towns. Adhere to that right and there must be an end put forever to the incorporation of new towns. As I have but a short time remaining, I must postpone some other observations on this point which I had designed to make, and call the attention of the members of the Committee to some remarks of my friend for Manchester, which I think deserve comment. In reference to what he said about political conventions, I feel bound to bear my testimony to a contrary doctrine. That gentleman talks about the conventions which would be required if you adopt anything like the district system. Now I believe that these political conventions are a very great advantage to the people. They tend to prevent centralization in a bad sense. They bring large bodies of the people together. When they meet in convention they discuss matters of general interest; they feel the necessity of political organization and union; they realize their own several importance as members of the body politic. They appreciate their own just weight in the community. Such meetings tend to promote the vital energy and prosperity of the Commonwealth; no better plan for conducting our elections can be devised, and their influence, so far as my observation has extended, is salutary in all respects.

As to the observations of my friend for Berlin, about centralization, although I know that he generally considers thoughtfully every subject which he brings into debate, I may be permitted to say, with all the respect which I bear for that gentleman, that I believe he is under a very great delusion upon this subject; I regard his position as wholly wrong. I think that instead of there being a tendency to centralization of political and social influence in this Commonwealth, the tendency is in the opposite direction. I think that the interior and rural districts and communities are relatively more powerful, have a more energetic spirit, and a keener sense of their rights and of their interests, than they had in former times. In the first place, let us look at this body. I know that the city of Boston is pow erfully and nobly represented upon this floor. But, Sir, the other cities in this Commonwealth, and the large towns generally, are also represented with a comparatively equal, if not with a greater

strength, than the city of Boston. It would be enough to mention the names of the two chief advocates of separate town representation, the delegates for Erving and Berlin, residing in the interior, and representing small towns. The city of Lowell, is represented on this floor by a most powerful array of talent; and so are the cities of Newburyport, and Charlestown, and Cambridge, and Lawrence, not to mention the other cities, which are here in their strength. Think of the contribution, not of borrowed, but of resident ability, which comes to us in this body from the city of Worcester-the very heart of hearts of this Commonwealth! I will not allude to my own city any further than to say, that I am not ashamed of my honorable colleagues. They are ready and able to speak for themselves. I might also name Fall River, and Taunton, and Danvers, and Adams, and Pittsfield, and Fitchburg, and Northampton, and all the large towns -the small towns too have added much to the character and talent of this body. Indeed, all over the surface of the Commonwealth, and in all forms, intellect and enterprise and genius are multiplying the evidences of their awakening power.

My friend for Berlin alluded in special terms to the clergy of the city and the country. Now, Sir, I hold that the clergy of the country occupy a position in which they may well challenge comparison with the clergy of our cities. I know something about this matter. In my travels through the State, I repeatedly partook of the hospitality of clergymen of the various denominations; and, Sir, I can assure you that I was astonished and delighted at the liberality of spirit, the general culture, the refinement of manners, the various attainments, the comprehensive education and the social influence which that noble body of men proved to me that they possessed.

No longer ago than last week, Sir, I had the pleasure of attending a celebration in the beautiful town of Lancaster, in which people from all parts of Northern Worcester, as well as some from other portions of the Commonwealth, were brought together. And there, Sir, I saw the fellow-citizens of the delegate for Berlin; and I saw, too, the people of the town he represents. Mr. Chairman, I will defy the cities of this Commonwealth or any part of the country, to present a population, of both sexes and all ages, better conditioned or more highly cultivated than that assemblage. And let me tell you, that although the town of Berlin is not represented here by one of her own citizens, it is not for any lack of talent in that town; for I heard an unpretending man respond for Berlin on that occasion, who, himself, would have been competent to add to the interest and wisdom of this Convention, if his fellow-citizens had not been fortunate enough to find a better man.

Now, Sir, with regard to this idea of the centralization of the power of the Commonwealth in the city of Boston, I do not believe it. There are other cities besides Boston-other cities beyond the bridges-we have a few in Essexfour out of the twelve in the Commonwealth; and will bring forward another soon. Put us all together, and we can do something to balance Boston, if Lawrence redeems her pledges, as she will. With her aid, we may be able to equal Boston before long. There is the great city of Lowell, and there are the cities of Worcester,

Springfield, Roxbury, New Bedford, and Cambridge, and Charlestown; and there are the great towns of Fall River and Taunton, and others, to divide the strength of the State with Boston. New cities, Sir, are in the womb of events, in other parts of the Commonwealth. If the great bore can be disposed of, and the Hoosac tunnelled, [laughter,] there will be a line of cities all along the northern side of the State. My friend for Erving, whose heart, after all, is in Greenfield, will see a city arising there that will equal Springfield; then, Sir, North Adams and South Adams, will flow together into one continuous and crowded settlement, sitting at the portals of the GREAT WORK, and welcoming the world to behold the noblest monument of the power, and enterprise, and grandeur of Massachusetts, and the last triumph of human prowess and energy.

In this way, by gathering cities, and expanding towns, over the whole surface of the State, we shall effectually break up the centralization of Boston.

My friend for Berlin entertained us with predictions of the number of inhabitants, twentytwo millions, I believe he made it, in certain great cities of the United States at a future period; but there will be fifty, nay seventy-five or one hundred millions at that time, scattered all over this continent, who will exert a powerful influence in keeping these great cities where they ought to be kept, and confining them to their just, and no more than their just, proportion of political and other power.

Mr. Chairman, permit me, in closing, to say, that if anything can be contrived that will be in accordance with justice and equality, and that, at the same time, will preserve essentially the energies and the political strength of the small towns, I shall rejoice. I remember that the delegate who represents Wilbraham, told us the other day about a very difficult problem in mathematics, which we were trying to solve here, and it was this: Given, a Commonwealth of three hundred and thirty towns, Required, a representative for each town, every year, and, at the same time, a House of no more than two hundred and forty members! Now, Sir, this is more than all the mathematics of this Convention can accomplish, let gentlemen continue forever the ciphering contrivances, in which so many have for some time been engaged.

Sir, sooner or later, the people will deliver themselves from the burden and the curse of an overgrown and mammoth House. Its numbers have got to be cut down to a manageable and reasonable point-the people expect us to do it now, and here. And why not do it now, and at once? Why leave it to be done hereafter? Why not, like men, address ourselves to the work, and provide for an equal people an equal government? Let us march straight up to the district system. If we do that, it will be a glorious thing for us all. Let us cut, at once, the gordian knot. To be sure there will be difficulties at the outset, but they will soon disappear, and the final operation will be most beneficent. Then may we proudly look back, in future years, to our labors in this Convention, and the share which we took in promoting this great object, as the proudest honor that ever had been, or ever could be conferied upon any one of us; and we shall have the assurance of having placed Massachusetts in her true position, before the States of this confedera

[June 24th.

cy and the civilized nations-clear, and pure and bright-in her legitimate character, as the glorious model Republic of the Union and the world.

Mr. HOLDER, of Lynn. I have listened with great attention to this morning's debate upon this question, and I believe that I have received a large amount of instruction, for certainly it is one which has been very ably discussed. I believe it will be admitted by every one, that this is a question which is attended with more difficulty than any one which has yet come before us for consideration, or which probably will come before us while we remain here. It is a question that demands of us that we should meet it with that flexibility, and that magnanimous spirit, which becomes members of a body, convened as we are, to make fundamental laws. It is a question which requires that we should divest ourselves of all party spirit, and soar at once into a purer atmosphere, where justice and generosity shall reign supreme. We have had two reports presented for our consideration. The Minority Report has been disposed of. I voted against that Report, and shall as readily vote against the Majority Report when it comes up here for our consideration.

I hope, Sir, that no gentleman will for a moment imagine that I do not appreciate the labor and diligent research which have been bestowed upon these Reports. I do appreciate them most fully. They bear upon their face the evidences of labor and patient investigation; and, for one, I can truly say that those gentlemen who framed them have my most sincere and devoted thanks,

But the question now recurs, "what plan should be adopted?" I believe that plan will be most satisfactory which gives to the towns a liberal representation in the House. In regard to the Senate I believe that it ought to be based upon population, and I voted for it because I believed that it was necessary to have some check upon the House of Representatives; and the Senate being fresh from the people, and holding the power of the people in their hands, they can see and determine what laws are necessary and proper to be passed. I do not believe that the same rule applies to the House of Representatives. I believe that it should not be based strictly upon population, but that in the Constitution of that House, regard ought to be had to the wants of the towns. I believe, Sir, that it is for the interest of the city of Boston to encourage a liberal representation of the country towns, for, by so doing, the city would gain trade and traffic which she would otherwise lose. Let the stream of representation be stopped, and you naturally and inevitably stop an important facility of trade which would flow into the city. But, above all, Boston would have the satisfaction of knowing that she was disseminating knowledge in the towns, knowledge acquired by men who are constantly coming into the city, and which would repay her sixty or a hundred fold.

I believe, then, Sir, that Boston can afford to be liberal and magnanimous. I have listened with satisfaction to the remarks which have been made by the gentlemen representing Boston, and, as far as I can perceive, they breathe a spirit of liberality and magnanimity. They do not manifest any disposition to crush the small towns-far from it. Of course there must and will be opposite views; but I think that most of the Boston members concede that it is nccessary to have a large portion of the political power, at all events

Friday,]

so far as the House of Representatives is concerned, distributed among the small towns; and I believe that we shall be more safe by adopting this plan than by constructing the House of Representatives on the aggregation of numbers. I trust, therefore, that we will all cultivate that spirit of compromise, in regard to this question, of which many distinguished gentlemen have spoken. They have spoken ably and well; and the spirit which they have manifested is worthy of all commendation. To them we are indebted for much instruction, and I trust that the result will be that we will so provide for the organization of the House of Representatives as will bring men here to do the business of the State in a creditable manner-in such a mode as will be productive of the best good to the whole community.

The question was now taken on the amendment of Mr. Brinley, of Boston, to the amendment of Mr. Butler, of Lowell, as follows:

Strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert:

That it is expedient so to alter and amend the Constitution as to provide for the election of three hundred and fifty members of the House of Representatives in districts composed of towns and cities, and of contiguous towns and districts, as nearly as may be, on the principle of an equality of numbers of population, according to the last State census; the apportionment to be revised on the same principle according to future State decennial censuses.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The question then recurred on the amendment offered by Mr. Butler.

Mr. GRAY, of Boston. That amendment was offered late last evening, and was immediately sent to the printers. None of us until a few moments ago have had an opportunity of reading it. It has only just been distributed, and I submit, that to take the question upon it now would be rather hasty action. I therefore move, in order that gentlemen may have ample time to consider this amendment, that the Committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell. I wish to amend the proposition which I offered yesterday in a single particular. The portion of the proposition which I wish to amend is the second paragraph on the second page. As it now stands, it reads as follows:

Every city or town of fifteen thousand inhabitants and upwards, shall be entitled to one representative, and as many additional in each year as the number of times five thousand may be contained in the whole number of the inhabitants thereof.

I wish to make it read:

Every city or town of over twelve thousand inhabitants shall be entitled to as many additional representatives in each year as the number of times five thousand may be contained in the additional number of the inhabitants thereof.

That makes a new divisor of five thousand when you get to fifteen thousand. There are three towns having a population of from fifteen to We have a very large fraction twenty thousand. in Worcester, and Roxbury, and Salem, and in order to meet that, I have thought it proper to offer this modification. It will make but a slight difference in the size of the House. It makes

only a difference of three representatives, and gives a representative to a large unrepresented minority as it at present stands. This would seem to be a little more just.

I wish now to state one thing, in regard to my proposition, which does not appear to be sufficiently understood, as I learn from the conversation of members of the Committee this morning. In all time, the highest possible House cannot be over four hundred and thirty-four, with this supposition that all the small towns will send a representative in the same year, which every-body knows, in practice, will not be the case. Whatever may be the increase of population, as indicated by the next or any future census, the matter is so constructed that the House of Representatives cannot exceed more than four hundred and thirty-four in number, even if each of the small towns should send a representative. The present extent of the House, allowing thirty-two members for the sixty-four towns under one thousand inhabitants, would be three hundred and ninety; by the proposition made yesterday it would be three hundred and eighty-seven; but by the amendment I propose to-day, it will be three hundred and ninety. And the largest possible House that we could have, on the basis of the present census, (that of 1850,) would be four hundred and nineteen. That allows every one of the small towns to send in the same year; but the average House would be, in fact, about three hundred and sixty. But suppose that every town should send as at present; it would then be three hundred and eighty-seven, allowing one-half of the small towns to send one year and the other half to send the next year, as about in practice it would be; but the largest possible House we could ever have would not exceed four hundred and thirty-four. The largest House on the other basis is three hundred and ninety; so that in no event can there ever be too large a House.

Mr. GRAY, of Boston. I am very unwilling to trouble the Convention again touching the matter of representation, and I do so with the more reluctance, because I am afraid that I speak certainly to courteous, but it may be to unwilling

ears.

But, Sir, I am desirous that if I have anything true to communicate it may be presented to the mind of every gentleman; and I hope that I do every gentleman no more than justice in supposing that he will keep his mind open to the last to the reception of anything like truth.

Now much has been said--and I regret that it has been said-touching the city of Boston. It was my own wish to say as little about that city as I could, consistently with my duty to my constituents. But there has been much said which I have thought has not been well considered, and which has been of rather a disparaging character, however it may have been intended. And, Sir, there have been many compliments paid to her of which I doubt not the sincerity-compliments paid to her intelligence and liberality, and other good qualities. But, Sir, I should have feltI will not say more grateful, but-more rejoiced at these compliments if they had not been made the basis of arguments to deprive the city of what I believe to be her rightful share of representation in the popular branch of the legislature.

As to the inequality of this proposition as it respects other counties, I leave gentlemen to cipher that out for themselves. I speak only of my own county. By this plan we are not only to be de

[June 24th.

prived of our equal share of representation, but we are to be cut up and divided. Why is this? Wherein is its justice? What has Boston done that she is to be thus treated? We are told that the corporate existence of the towns is a sacred thing which is not to be touched; and yet gentlemen propose to divide the cities into districts, without allowing to those districts their aliquot share of representation. Now, Sir, what, I repeat, is the argument for this? Why, Sir, the amount of it is, that we have voluntarily given up our corporate existence because we have a representative government. This is certainly news to me. How do we give up our corporations under such circumstances? Do we not still conduct our municipal affairs as a corporation? Do we not take care of our schools and our poor and our highways, and do all other matters and things as we did before we procured a city charter? On that principle

Mr. DANA, for Manchester. Will the gentleman allow me one moment to interrupt him.

Mr. GRAY. I yield the gentleman the floor. Mr. DANA. If the gentleman from Boston refers to my argument, I would set him right in regard to it. It was not that the cities had given up their corporate capacity. So far from that, I contended that they had got a peculiar and separate corporate capacity from the legislature. My argument was, that they had given up their town character and assumed a mode of municipal government altogether different from that existing in the towns.

Mr. GRAY. What I mean is, that the cities have not given up their character as municipal corporations. I hold, that in the fullest sense of the word, they are municipal corporations, and as such have their corporate rights in common with the towns, and that a change in the form of their municipal government does not deprive them of their character as corporations. If gentlemen please to have it so, they are no longer townsalthough I might prove that they were; but the fact, that they are called by another name, and have a somewhat different form of municipal government, does not deprive them of their character as municipal corporations, and if representation in the legislature is to be based upon township organizations, then, I contend, that to all intents and purposes our cities are entitled to representation on the same basis. If the one is a municipal corporation and on that ground entitled to representation, so is the other a municipal corporation, and entitled to representation on precisely the same ground. Will any gentleman tell me what is the difference between a city as such, and a large town that is not a city, especially in regard to their respective choice of representatives? How does a large town choose its representatives? I lived in a large town for the first fifteen years of my life, and, although too young to take any part in political proceedings, I usually attended town meetings and caucuses. And how were the representatives chosen? Why, Sir, at that time there were two parties-Federalists and Democrats-though one of them has since gone by, and its name has gone after it-these two parties met in their caucuses, and presented the names of their respective candidates, and how was the question between these candidates decided? Why, Sir, they were decided by ballot, although I undertake to say, that if Mr. De Tocqueville, or any other learned Frenchman