est to the people, the care of all the interests which can be devolved upon them. For instance, we intrust to the school district all that the school district can do, to the towns all that the towns ean do, and to the counties all that the counties can do; and the State is only the residuary legatee of the power which cannot be exercised by any of the smaller communities or associations. Now, on the other hand, there is a system such as obtains in France, in which all the administration emanates from Paris. There you cannot make a road or build a bridge in Marseilles, without going up to some bureau in Paris. That, of course, is an evil.

Thus, when men speak of centralization, be it ever borne in mind, that they speak of a centralization of administration, and not of a centralization of government; because, the moment the government ceases to be central, it ceases to be government. Now, it is true, as my friend has remarked, that most of the political refugees that come here, cry out against centralization; and why? For the same reason that poor King Lear, when he saw Edgar, said, "What, have his daughters brought him to this?" He could not conceive of suffering coming from any other source than that which had lacerated his heart. So these men, when they come here, see dangers that do not exist.

Now, what is the state of Europe? It is true that centralization exists in France, in Russia and a considerable portion of Germany. It does not exist in England, Spain, Italy, or Switzerland; and I doubt if it does in Holland, Belgium, Denmark, or Sweden.

And, if the tendency to centralization be an evil, the opposite tendency is also an evil. In looking back upon the teachings of history, where do we find the most exact parallels to our own political institutions and relations? Beyond all question, in the democracies of Greece, and the Italian republics of the middle ages. And what was the destruction of both of these? It was a want of the principle of centralization; it was the absence of the aggregating or fusing power; it was because they carried to the extreme the individual, the diffusing, the disintegrating element, on account of which they were constantly at strife with each other, and thus opened the door for foreign conquest. I do not think that we are in any danger here of centralization. I think the whole course of public sentiment, and the whole course of legislation, is against it. And I do not think-to bring the case down directly to the point before us-that Boston, as Boston, has even its proportionate share of influence in the councils of the State. We must distinguish

[June 23d.

the influence which a man living in Boston exercises, from that which he has simply because he lives in Boston. In the one case, his influence comes from the fact that he lives in Boston; and in the other, it is in spite of it. I ask any candid man to say, whether the forty-four men who are members from Boston have not less, rather than more, than their proportionate influence in the legislature? I appeal to any lobby member here who perchance may be within the sound of my voice, whether, when he has a measure which he is very anxious to carry through, he cares very much about getting the aid of a Boston member, and if, indeed, there is not sometimes a very profound stroke of policy shown in getting some Boston member to oppose the proposition which he wishes to have succeed?

Mr. Chairman, is it not so? Boston influence is a mere bugbear. My friend, the attorneygeneral, (Mr. Choate,) made a remark very striking and very obvious-and I take it that to be at once striking and obvious is one of the characteristics of genius-that sarcasm never touches the farmers; that around them there is a magic circle over which nobody ever passes. Is it true of Boston? Is not the converse true? Does not every young orator who opens a bottle of foaming and flatulent declamation before a district convention, have some fling against the city of Boston before he sits down? By their fruits, not their words, judge them. If the influence of Boston were so tremendous a thing, you would not find these politicians braving its opposition with such courage as they do. No man takes a lion by the beard with such coolness as they display. He may say it is a lion, but he knows it is the tamest of kittens, in his heart.

Nor, Sir, do I repose much confidence in the calculations which have been made as to the future. It is sometimes said that figures cannot lie, but I submit that this is a fallacy. I do not know anything more mendacious than statistics, because, although you can get the truth from them you cannot get the whole truth. It was said by the gentleman who was employed by Mr. Pitt to make out his statistical tables, that he always asked that great minister before he began, on which side he wished the result to be. I do not know anything more monstrous than the phantoms begotten by a fertile imagination upon a cloud of statistics.

In 1797, or thereabouts, there was a gentleman in England, by the name of Thelluson, who left a great fortune, about £600,000, which was to accumulate for two or three generations before it was to be divided among his descendants. This matter came before parliament and before the

courts, and calculations were made that at the time the property was to be divided-I believe not many years from the present time-it would have accumulated to one hundred and forty millions of pounds sterling-much more than the whole civil list of Great Britain. We have lived to see the result of these predictions, and, Sir, that fund is not much greater now than it was sixty years ago. What with administrators and trustees, and the benevolent appetite of the court of chancery, its accumulations have been very small indeed, and the property was at last given into the hands of the family, they giving security to pay the small residuary portion which courts, lawyers and trustees left.

Sir James Mackintosh, in the course of a speech during the debate upon the reform bill, said :

"Nothing human is one sense of the word final. Of a distant futurity I know nothing; and I am therefore altogether unfitted to make laws for it. Posterity may rightly measure their own wants and their capacity-we cannot; the utmost that we can aspire to, is to remove elements of discord from their path."

I think gentlemen need not disturb themselves as to what may be the necessities of the people in 1900. We shall have at least one Constitutional Convention before that time, and perhaps two.

I have spoken about the questions before us, rather than to them; and I will reward the patience with which the Committee have listened to me, by hastening to a close. The problem before us is difficult, but not impossible. Indeed, I know not any problem in politics or government which may not be solved by wisdom, a generous temper, and magnanimous spirit. It is certain that we cannot attain our ideal in regard to this matter. We cannot have a system which will secure to us a small House, which will preserve to the corporate towns their entire rights of representation, and at the same time work no injustice to anybody. This combination is as impossible as that of the smallest sized Bible with the largest sized print. We must set out in a spirit of accommodation and compromise. Start not at that word! We must approach the question in that mood which the apostle describes by the expression, "in honor preferring one another." We must be prepared to make a sacrifice of our personal predilections, of our local attachments, of our party ties-"upon such sacrifices the gods themselves throw incense." Now we have two systems, the corporate system and the district system; for although we have set our seal of dissent upon the district system in its entirety, yet the claims of that system as an ingredient must be considered. The district system is simple in its

[June 23d.

working, and decisive in its results; but, on the other hand, it cuts and levels too much-it lacerates too many tender fibres. Short cuts are desirable, everywhere, but in order to attain them we must not carry our roads through farmyards and churchyards. The corporate system is dear to the feelings of the people of the Commonwealth; it is also commended by historical associations, but when we come to carry it out, it creates enormous injustice-we cannot avoid that result. Thus you have the question presented; and while on the one hand we should not be too much entangled by precedents, on the other hand we should not be too much bound to abstract principles. Bacon says: "Civil knowledge is of all others the most immersed in matter, and the hardliest reduced to axioms." The same illustrious thinker says in another place: "Generalities are barren, and the multiplicity of single facts present nothing but confusion. The middle principles alone are solid, orderly and fruitful." How admirably this is expressed-how brief, and yet how pertinent.

I am willing, Sir, if there is supposed to be any conflict between the large and small towns-I am willing to yield more to the small towns than most of my colleagues, or most of my constituents. I am willing to yield something of the numerical proportion to which Boston is entitled. Take for instance, the pretty town of Hatfield, with its broad green meadows, and respectable farm-houses, overshadowed by ancestral elms, against whose trunks the arrow of the Indian hunter may perhaps have glanced. She has about one thousand inhabitants, while Boston has about one hundred and forty thousand. Now, I admit that we should not ask for one hundred and forty times as many representatives in the legislature as Hatfield sends, because, besides the advantage which we have in concentration, we have a larger proportion of the worthless classes, and a larger proportion of the dangerous classes, than they have; and if by chance a man of either of these classes is born in Hatfield, he sooner or later finds his way to Boston; and therefore we do not claim so much representation in proportion to the population in Boston, as we are willing to concede to Hatfield. Nor do I feel my sensibilities much wounded at the prospect of having Boston districted. I think it would have been an advantage to Boston, and that the influence of our delegation would have been greater than it is now, if instead of having forty-four representatives of one party, there had been thirtyfour of one party and ten of the other. I think these thirty-four would have more influence than forty-four; they would have been more diligent

in their calling, and more attentive to duties. As to the size of the House, personally I prefer a small House, by which, I mean a House of about two hundred and fifty members, although I would not turn pale at the prospect of three hundred and fifty. I think that too large is a better defect than too small. I would rather have a House that is cumbrous than one that is corruptible. I think that there is an advantage in a House of considerable size which has not yet been stated. One of the advantages of the House of Representatives in Massachusetts is that there are a considerable proportion of its members who have no prospective or ulterior views. They are here to do their work, and nothing else. Now look at the legislature of New York. New York is a very large State, and it has a very small House of Representatives. There are only about three times as many members in the lower House as there are members of congress; therefore every member of that body has one-third of a chance towards being a member of congress. Now I say, as a general rule in legislation, just so far as the legislator comes to the place of legislation with ulterior views, either with respect to himself or his party-just so far as he legislates with one eye upon the table before him, and the other eye upon some distant point, just so far his value as a legislator becomes impaired. This fact makes a distinction between the Massachusetts House on the one hand, and that of New York and Pennsylvania on the other, which we ought to keep.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have these two systems to combine. I think if we address ourselves to the task in the spirit of common sense and the spirit of patriotism, we can see our way out of this maze of perplexity. I would approach the subject in a flexible and yielding spirit. I would not haggle about drams and pennyworths; I would not cavil about the ninth part of a hair; I would not be over nice about the exact proportions in which the power is to be distributed which is to be exercised by all, and for the good of all. My reliance is upon the spirit of the people, and not upon the forms in which it may be manifested. Our legislatures and our laws are but the instruments through which the mind and heart of this community are breathed; and the same instruments may send forth the golden harmonies of peace or the harsh thunders of discord. Forms are but dead matter;-it is the living spirit which animates them which is important. In the most hideous despotisms of Nero and Calijula, the forms of a republic were sacredly preserved. I, for one, as a citizen of Boston, and a citizen of Massachusetts, would rather trust to that which is freely given to us by the magna

[June 23d.

nimity and the generosity of our country friends, than to that which is wrung from them against the convictions of their minds and against the feelings of their hearts.

I am willing to trust my life, my rights and my fortunes to the whole people of this Commonwealth; and if that fatal day should ever come in which the rights, the fortunes, or the life of the humblest individual cannot be trusted to the discretion and protection of the whole, then life itself will cease to be worth the having.

Mr. DANA, for Manchester. I do not rise, Mr. Chairman, to reply, or to attempt to reply, to the argument made by my friend from Boston, who has just taken his seat; but, with the indulgence of this House, and perhaps, by the strict rule of order, I should throw myself a little upon their indulgence,-I would like to say one word upon that portion of his remarks which are particularly personal to myself. It is true, as he said, that the most friendly relations have always subsisted between us, and that we have been brought up, to a great extent, in the same political school; but if he will allow me to use a single phrase of his, inasmuch as a "drop of blistering dew" seemed to fall from him upon the member for Manchester, I would like to wipe it off before the record of this day be closed.

My friend was entirely mistaken in saying that the words which I had uttered in this House the other day were carefully prepared and well considered. Not only is it true that I had never put pen to paper, but I had no thought of addressing the House whatever, until two or three minutes before I arose. I had laid out no plan of remarks, and every word I uttered was purely extemporaneous; and what I said about Boston, her citizens, and the towns of the Commonwealth, and their relative moral and intellectual character and capacity, was something that occurred to me from moment to moment, as I went on. Had I had time to consider and reflect and prepare my remarks, I might have made them better, or I might have made them worse; but whatever they were, they stand as they came from my mouth, and it is not in my disposition to alter the record, however it may be.

My friend reminded me, and it is not the first time in the course of my life that I have been reminded of it, that "the bread that he and I both eat, comes from the business community of Boston, and that we should not strike at the hand that feeds us." The hand that feeds us! The hand that feeds us! Sir, no hand feeds me that has any right to control my opinions!

For my friend from Boston I could not do him a greater injustice-and it would be the grossest

Thursday,]

[June 23d.

as being the sentiments of his heart. Can I suppose that the eloquent compliment which he paid the city of Boston-the eulogy which he pronounced upon her merchants and her manufacturers, and the expression of devotion beyond that of a lover for his mistress-had any connection whatever with a thought in his mind of the hand which gives him bread?

I trust, Mr. Chairman, on that point, that language or intimation such as that, will never again be uttered in my presence. I do confess it would take me a good while to feel that I was entirely restored to self-respect, after an intimation of that sort has fallen from any one.

He furthermore applied to me the lines from Pope :

"Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,

Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike."

If the acquaintance of a number of years has left upon the mind of that gentleman an impression that these are my characteristics,-that any one of the characteristics embraced in these lines attaches itself to me, or to my father's son,-I should lose all confidence in moral impressions that could be produced by any character; but it is not for me to say to this Convention whether it be true or whether it be not true, I will leave it to their judgment.

I should have been more gratified, I confess, if my friend from Boston had alluded to a few things I said favorable to the city of Boston, and had not confined his benevolent attention solely to what I said against the city of Boston.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is true that all I said when I spoke upon the subject was purely extemporaneous, and I do not undertake now to remember precisely what it was. I do recollect that I began by paying to the city of Boston a tribute for its unparalleled liberality and generosity, distinguished as she is for her encouragement of science and literature, and her great works of benevolence in all departments where there is misery to relieve or ignorance to enlighten; and, Sir, I could have gone further, and I think I could have adopted most of the tribute paid to Boston by my friend. No man is more sensible of the liberality of her merchants than I am. I believe, Sir, that the present generation of Boston merchants is the most liberal generation in money matters that Boston, or any city in this country, ever saw. But, Sir, it was not my purpose to pronounce an eulogium upon Boston. There is another tribute which I wished to pay, and that was to the memory of the Lowells and the Jacksons who founded our manufacturing system upon the basis of morals, and religion, and intelligence.

been given; full justice has never been done, either to those who originated the system, or to the Appletons and the Lawrences who continued it. History will see in these men as wise and liberal a forecast as any body of founders and colonizers ever exhibited.

But, Mr. Chairman, it was no part of my purpose to pay a tribute to Boston; it was not necessary that I should do so; there are always persons enough to do it without any aid from me. I have never seen the day nor the hour that in Boston there were not men enough to do all the duty of commendation to her rich and powerful; and therefore I did not feel myself particularly called upon to enter into that field of emulation; but I did pay a tribute of respect, in a particular quarter where I thought it was due; and I wish my friend, instead of holding me up as the calumniator of Boston, had presented all I said, so that it might not have been misunderstood. I should have seen the hand of friendship in it far more clearly.

But there were some things that I did say about Boston, and to them I mean to adhere. Whether intimations come to me in the honied phrases of my friend, or threats in the stronger and coarser voice of the public press, the convictions of my understanding and heart I shall utter here, in the discharge of my duty. I do not believe, Sir, that personal independence and devotion to civil liberty, is as strong in large trading communities as it is among our rural population. I do not believe that it is so strong in the Boston of 1850, 1851, 1852, and 1853, as it was in the Boston of 1775. I can look back with as much pride as any man in the history of Boston, and especially to that period I have named; but, Sir, until my whole nature shall undergo a change, I cannot look upon the course of Boston during the past few years with that satisfaction which becomes a man educated in the principles of liberty and independence-educated in the belief that the rights and liberties of the poorest, and the dignity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts must be maintained at every pecuniary and every political hazard.

Now, these being my convictions, and this question being before us,-not one that I brought up,-I have taken the liberty to express them, and by these convictions I stand or fall.

The gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hillard,) said that there was in Boston a great and greatly increasing population—the poor aliens-persons having little interest in the prosperity and welfare of the city; persons against whom they eventually must be protected. Now, I would ask him whether that is the class of persons on whom he

Thursday,]

wishes the government of this country to be based. I would ask him whether the time may not yet come, when the conservative citizens of Boston will rejoice at the work which I hope we shall accomplish in this Convention - that is, the maintaining, in their unimpaired dignity, the town republics spread over the soil of Massachusetts? But, Sir, if you take from them the right of choosing their representatives, you take from them their entire political power and capacity. True, their municipal capacity remains; but you take from them their entire political power and capacity. If this class of population to which my friend has alluded does increase, as he says they will, I can tell him that in advocating this plan of town representation, I have not been governed by the present state of political parties, and I have wondered that certain others have not seen this subject as I have. I think the time may come, when the rightly conservative people of Boston may look at these town representatives as the bulwark of their safety in the legislature, against the overpowering numbers in their great city. Sir, I believe it will work practical and humane conservatism throughout the State, and that is the reason why I have supported it.

But, Sir, it was not for the purpose of debating this question that I rose. I have accomplished the purpose for which I rose, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHOULER. I have but one word to say in reply to the remarks made by both of the gentlemen with regard to Boston. Sir, I disagree entirely from the conclusion to which my colleague has come in regard to the class of people "accumulating and increasing" in Boston, and the class which he fears. I think, Sir, that the facts are these: that so far from that class accumulating in proportion to the rest of the population, they are decreasing; that in accordance with the population, there are not nearly so many of this class as there were fifty years ago; and I❘ think it is perfectly clear that as Boston increases in that sort of population, she will increase ten per cent. more in good population; and therefore these sores, instead of increasing and becoming larger, are, in fact, decreasing, both in their number and their character.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not here to eulogize Boston, nor do I mean to do so. I think she has a great many faults, but I would ask the gentleman for Manchester whether, in a hundred and forty towns of this Commonwealth, having the same number of people in them as the city of Boston, he cannot find as many vicious and bad persons as he can find in the city of Boston? For my part, I have no doubt about it. And I cannot conceive why we should lose our strength

[June 23d.

in the legislature in consequence of these fears which have been here expressed. Boston has her population accumulating and enlarging, and so have the country towns; and because we have this large population here in a small compass, and see all these sores more easily than if they were spread out over the counties, we are apt to think that there are more of them, and that they are of a more aggravated character.

I merely rose to express this idea to do bare justice to the city of Boston; to state that so far from deteriorating in morality, both her history, and all the facts of the present day, will show that she is improving, that there are but few of that vicious class of persons in comparison with the population-much fewer than there were fifty years ago, and I have no doubt there will be fewer still fifty years hence than there are now.

Mr. HOOPER, of Fall River. Unfortunately for me, and perhaps for the Convention, on some accounts, I was necessarily absent during a considerable portion of last week, when this subject was so fully discussed. I have, therefore, heard but little of the discussion on the subject, and consequently, may be in danger of repeating what may have been repeated several times before. But, Sir, I happen to come from a portion of the Commonwealth which is deeply interested in this question, as the plan before you reported by a majority of the Committee, has an unequal and injurious effect on that portion of the Commonwealth. I believe that no one from that section has attempted to bring forward its claims, or to state in what manner the interests of that particular section is to be affected by the preceding proposition. I believe that no voice has yet been heard from the county from which I come, in regard to this matter.

I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of going into a defence of any party or personal consistency. It strikes me, that all that is entirely out of place here; that we are convened for a particular and specific purpose-for the transaction of specific business; and I, for one, wish to regard this matter in a business light, and hope that we may direct our attention at once to the matter in hand, and bring our deliberations to a conclusion at the earliest possible day.

When I heard the gentleman from Adams, the other day, undertaking to recite what had been said by the several members upon this floor, who had preceded him, I did not know but that he was doing a service to those who had been absent

myself among the number-because the publication of our reports is so far behind as to be of scarcely any use. But, before he got through with his remarks, I became satisfied that his