Upon reflection, as there are plans before the Convention which contemplate a higher number than twelve hundred, as it it more parliamentary to take the question upon the highest number first, and as I have another proposition, which is in the hands of the Convention, and which I may offer hereafter, I have concluded to withdraw the amendment, and leave the question to be taken upon the Report of the Committee.

Mr. MARVIN, of Winchendon. I have a proposition which I desire to submit, but I do it with a great deal of diffidence, because I am entirely unused to the course of legislative proceedings, and because I am surrounded with men of such great experience and reputation, that anything which they offer will be received with a degree of respect, which cannot be hoped for in relation to anything which may come from me. I may, however, ask for the candid attention of the Convention for a few moments, although what I have to offer may not be recommended by experience or influence acquired in public bodies.

case.

A very distinguished teacher, Dr. Dwight, being asked what his rules were in governing the schools and higher institutions under his care, answered that he never had but one rule, and that was to meet every case as it came up, and deal with it in the best way that he could. His rule was to use his common sense, and do right in every That was the only general rule. Now we have gentlemen here, who have some great rule or principle which they wish to drive through, and regulate every thing by. But I believe that it will be found here, and in legislation generally, that there is but one general rule never to be departed from, and that is, in moral questions, that we should do right, and in practical matters, when we cannot do exactly right, do as nearly right as we possibly can.

Some wish to have the State districted, because there is a great principle involved in it; but that principle subjects the small towns to the larger. Others wish to have all the towns represented every year, because there is a great principle at stake; but that principle gives the towns uncontrolled power and swamps the cities. I suppose both of these great principles, so called, have already been rejected by the Committee, and the conclusion we have come to, is, that there must be a compromise, while the great principle upon which we shall be compelled to act, is, to do as nearly right as possible.

I now wish to introduce an amendment to the amendment now before us. It is one, I may say, which has been seen by several gentlemen who represent the small towns, and it has been examined by some gentlemen, in whose judgment

[June 29th.

this Convention has great confidence, and they say it is a proposition which will be more just in its operation, than any before us.

The amendment which I propose to submit is the following:

Strike out from Mr. Butler's amendment all the paragraphs before the word Resolved, except the second, and insert the following ::

Each town having five hundred inhabitants and less, shall be entitled to five Representatives in ten years.

To all towns having between five hundred and fifteen hundred inhabitants, an additional Representative, every ten years, shall be given for every two hundred additional inhabitants.

Each town having between fifteen hundred and four thousand inhabitants, shall have one Representative annually.

Each town having between four thousand and eight thousand inhabitants, shall have two Representatives annually.

Each town or city having between eight thousand and twelve thousand inhabitants, shall have three Representatives annually.

Each town or city having between twelve thousand and sixteen thousand inhabitants, shall have four Representatives annually.

Each town or city having between sixteen thousand and twenty thousand inhabitants, shall have five Representatives annually.

Each town or city having between twenty thousand and twenty-six thousand inhabitants, shall have six Representatives annually; and each additional six thousand inhabitants shall entitle any town or city to an additional Representative.

Each town having less than fifteen hundred inhabitants, shall have one additional Representative every ten years, for valuation year.

average addition of thirteen representatives, nearly. The total annual representation from 129 towns having less than 1,500 inhabitants would amount to 100.

Allowing each of the 146 towns containing between 1,500 and 4,000 inhabitants, to have a representative annually; it would give 146 representatives. The ratio of increase is 2,500.

Allowing each of the thirty towns containing between 4,000 and 8,000 inhabitants to have two representatives annually, it would give sixty representatives. The ratio of increase is 4,000.

[June 29th.

been several times brought up here, and I have never heard a reply. As I have not heard all the debate upon this question, it may be that I shall go over the same ground that others have in adverting to it. The plan of town representation has been compared to the rotton borough system in England. Now, Sir, I want to know what system this Convention could possibly adopt which would reduce the towns of Massachusetts to a system of rotten boroughs, like those in England, or which could bring them within the range of comparison ? And if it were true, would gentlemen accomplish any object by mak

Now, I submit, that this is a fair plan, substantially like that we have adopted, but improved a little in detail; and if this matter is to be recommitted to a Committee, and if the whole of these plans which have been proposed are to go there, I want to go with the rest. This plan, it will be perceived, will be favorable to the small towns; but I think it is the policy of the Convention to give them some advantage in the House of Representatives, because the cities have much advantage out of the legislature.

There is one point bearing on this general question which I desire briefly to notice. It has

do any good, or have any tendency to conciliate? What is a rotten borough in England? Does it require a few people, or many, to make it a rotten borough? Is a small borough rotten while a large one is sound? I understand that a rotten borough, in England, is one where the lands and houses are in the hands of a single person, or a few persons. When one of the ancestors of William Pitt returned from Madras, with his great diamond, he bought up two of those boroughs, and by controlling the electors, was enabled to return himself to parliament from one, and to secure a scat for his eldest son, his brother, or his creature, from the other. Lord Clive, who came home rich from India, bought up several of these boroughs, and thus secured a strong parliamentary interest. Many other nabobs followed his example. Besides, many of the peers, and other landed gentlemen, owned boroughs by hereditary right, and thus controlled those electors who were their tenants.

Such is the rotten borough system in England. Now, is there anything like that in Massachusetts? Is there anything like that in this country? Are the towns of Massachusetts rotten boroughs in this sense? Are they owned by any one or two individuals who control their elections? Are they similar, by any manner of means? No, Sir, they are owned by the people who live in them; by the farmers, the mechanics, the merchants, and others. They are generally divided off into small farms, and every man, almost, owns one of these farms, and the elections are controlled by the free choice of a majority of the people. There is, therefore, no sort of resemblance between the two. But if there was a rotten borough in Massachusetts, I will venture to say it would be owned in Boston. This remark is not made to provoke any gentleman from the city of Boston. If such a state of things should take place, it would be no fault of her citizens, it would rather be to their credit. The wealth of the city is increasing very dispro

portionably to the increase in the country. To | this increase there can be no objection. With an increase of wealth will come an increase of influence, and there can be no objection to that; and when I say, that if there is now, or ever will be, a rotten borough in the State of Massachusetts, it will be owned in the city of Boston, I do not say it for the purpose of creating a jealousy between the city and country. However, I do not believe the delegates from Boston, who are so ready to defend their city, have any strong objection to these comparisons being made between the relative wealth, influence and prosperity of the city and the country, as it gives them such a fine opportunity to set forth the praises of Boston. I am reminded of a picture, with a bit of description to it, which was hung up in our print shops a few years since. It represented a French girl who had a beau. There were several other girls around, teasing her about him, at which she affected great indignation. Seeing this, they left off their banter, when she cried out, "tease me more!" [Laughter.] I very strongly suspect that such would be the result with the Boston delegates, if we should cease talking about the wealth and influence, and political power of their constituency. Sir, I hope Boston will go on increasing in wealth, in population, and in power. I hope her new library will increase, until it becomes the largest library in the country, and rivals the great libraries of the Old World. I hope the Athenæum, with its galleries of painting and of statuary, may increase, until it shall attain sufficient attractions to keep our young men of genius at home, and attract the sons of genius from other countries here. But what is the effect of this great increase of wealth, learning, and population? The greater their increase, the greater will be the political influence and power of Boston; so that it is necessary for the small towns to secure their interest in the legislature, before there is an overwhelming power to prevent them. And there can be no just cause for jealousy against the country towns, because they desire to secure for themselves a proportionate power and influence in your House, in respect to representation. They think it is only what they are justly entitled to, and therefore they come forward in this Convention and claim it as their right.

Again, if you will allow me, Sir, to allude once more to the comparisons which have been made between the city and country, I think there is at least as much intelligence and democratic spirit in the country as in the city. Gentlemen have said that there was more of the democratic spirit in the city than in the country. It is not so in our country, however it may be elsewhere. In Eng

[June 29th.

land, the princes, the barons, and the rich men, who live in the city, have country residences and estates, and it is there that they exert their influence; and therefore, so far as politics are concerned, there is more of aristocracy and less of democracy in the counties than in the city. But it is not so in Massachusetts. The Boston merchants and bankers cannot go out into the country and buy up large estates, and live upon them, and control the elections in the places where they live. There are but few of the princely men, doing business in Boston, who live in the country. So that there can be no comparison in this respect, between the state of things in England and in Massachusetts. In England, there is more of the democratic spirit and principle in the cities, and more of the aristocratic spirit and principle in the country; but here the case is precisely the reverse. It seems to me, therefore, that there is no occasion to draw comparisons of this description between England and Massachusetts, unless it is by way of contraries.

Now, Sir, I hope the plan I have indicated will commend itself to the good sense of this Convention. As I remarked before, there is no substantial difference between it and the plan submitted by the gentleman from Lowell. It is only a modification of that plan. It seems to me that it need give rise to no jealousy upon the part of the people of Boston. The very fact of the presence of the legislature in Boston gives that city a very great advantage over the other portions of the Commonwealth. The people of Boston are in constant communication with the members of the legislature, and in this way they are constantly modifying their opinions. They are constantly shaping the opinions and the course of the country representatives by means of the press, and their means of diffusing information through the State are much greater. Here in the city you can tell what towns will be likely to return majorities for any particular party, and you are able to send out lecturers into every part of the Commonwealth, and you have the money to spend in bringing out the voters to the polls whenever it is desirable to change the result. So that although you did not elect a single representative from Boston, you would, perhaps, have fifty members returned from other parts of the State devoted to its interests. I do not mean that this result would be secured by bribery, but through your influence, nevertheless. I, therefore, hope that all jealousy between the eity and country, if there be any, will be discontinued and will be left out of the question in the settlement of this subject.

Mr. WHITNEY, of Boylston. There has been much said in this Convention, and many speeches

and true, to say whether or not he has a right to have a place as a freeman upon the soil of Massachusetts. This is what I call centralization, and what I fear. It is the great question that now agitates the nation and the world, and we must use our best endeavors to guard the Commonwealth against the danger to be apprehended from this centralizing influence.

I hold we can do that better by standing where we are upon our present representation than to be absorbed in districts, where I take it we can be easily managed. I hope therefore that the farmers, the mechanics, and all good men upon this floor will stand by their rights, and manfully maintain them. If we must be absorbed let it be done inch by inch, and let us contend every inch of ground.

Mr. FRENCH, of New Bedford. I have listened to this debate with a great deal of interest. Certain gentlemen have discussed this subject most ably and eloquently, and from the opinions expressed on all sides I am inclined to think that we may very soon come to a result. There are a great number of propositions in regard to this matter of representation now before the Convention, and some of them differ widely from each other. I cannot subscribe to the proposition of the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) now under discussion. I am satisfied, though very many gentlemen might vote for it, that a better plan might be submitted to this Convention than that one that would unite a larger vote, prove more satisfactory to ourselves, the country, and the large cities and towns. The plan proposed by him seems to be unequal. We must expect some inequality, for I am greatly in favor of town representation. I could wish that every town in this Commonwealth might have a representation every year, were it practicable. The present system of giving twenty-six representatives to a county having 30,000 or 31,000 inhabitants, and only twenty-eight representatives to a county having 75,000, seems to be a little unequal. Besides, one county having 30,000 or 31,000 inhabitants has twenty-six representatives while another, having 31,900 inhabitants, has fourteen representatives. It seems to me, that it would be well to recommit this whole subject, with all the various plans which have been submitted. Farther discussion upon this subject can do no good, and will bring us to no better result. It seems to me if we will simply refer this whole subject with all the plans to a Special Committee consisting of one from each county, with instructions to report at an early period, no matter how carly, to-morrow if they please, that they will be able to devise a plan which will be more satisfac

[June 29th.

tory to us and the Commonwealth. I therefore hope that this motion will prevail, as such a Committee would have before them all the plans, tables, and figures which have been presented before us, and they would have the benefit of the able and lengthy discussion that we have had to guide them in the discharge of their duty. I intend to make the motion to recommit this subject to a Committee of one from each county.

Mr. GILES, of Boston. I favor the object of the gentleman from New Bedford, (Mr. French,) if it be the sense of the Committee to recommit at this time. I thought he took his seat without making the motion he intended, and that was the reason why I arose. But as the floor has been yielded to me, I say now that I should be in favor of a recommital of this subject to a special committee of one from each county, or a committee formed in any way agreeable to the Convention, who should consider all the plans and endeavor to reconcile and eliminate such an one as should receive the approbation of a large majority of this Convention. While I have the floor, I will say a few words upon this subject, and before I am done, if the gentleman from New Bedford desires it, I will make the motion which he intended to make. Until yesterday, I had made up my mind to listen in silence during the progress of the discussion, and watch, in a friendly spirit, all the propositions that should be offered, intending to vote for anything that I conscientiously believed to be an improvement upon the present system. The district system which I approve, was rejected by so decided a vote, early in the debate, before I had an opportunity to speak upon it, that I concluded not to speak upon the subject at all. I adhered to that conclusion until the vote yesterday, by which the proposition of the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) was adopted. That vote encouraged me to hope for some substantial improvement of the present system in a direction towards the district system. The speech of the gentleman from Ipswich, (Mr. Haskell,) has increased my disposition to say a word upon this subject, and increased my hope of a good result. We are not in a position to reject everything, unless it meets entirely our approbation, because we have a system now to which we all object, and which we all desire to improve, and we must vote for something as an improvement, or adhere to the present system, and, therefore, we are not in that position which will enable us, as between two evils, to do according to the old maxim, naturally to choose neither; but we are compelled, between two evils, to choose the least. Therefore, if the amendment of the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. But