debates of Saturday last, had been understood in
—a sense, which he was not willing to have impu-
ted to him, and which it was not his design to
convey. The gentleman from Baltimore city,
(Mr. Gwinn,) had been understood, in the com-
mittee room, as expressing his fixed determina-
tion to make an argument in the House, on the
question of popular representation. He under-
stood the gentleman afterwards to have announ-
ced his determination, on the floor of the House,
to the same effect. Subsequently, when the gen-
tleman united in the effort, made by other mem-
bers to have the subject recommitted, without
discussing the merits of the general question, he
had thought it fair to retort this change of posi-
tion upon the gentleman, in reply to his assault,
(if he might so term it,) upon him. It was to
this, and this alone, he designed to refer as the
"crooked and tortuous course," of the gentle-
man. The charge of the gentleman, on Satur-
day, and his defence, were both made in good
temper, and certainly nothing would be more
foreign to the fact, or more unpleasant to him,
than to have it supposed he designed to impute to
that gentleman, any habitual evasion of duty or
responsibilty. Their relations had always been
most friendly, and had not been in the slightest
degree interrupted by the little good humored
pass between them on Saturday, and he hoped
nothing would occur to change these relations, as
he professed high respect, both for the intellec-
tual and honorable character of the gentlemen.
It was with regret, therefore, he had heard that
in the incompleteness, necessarily growing out
of the parsimonious mode of reporting, there had
been found room for a construction of his re-
marks, which would be as unjust to him, as to the
gentleman. Of course be had resolved to cor-
rect any error on this subject, the moment it had
been suggested to him, by the kindness of a
friend.
Mr. GWINN said that he was satisfied with the
explanation of the gentleman from Kent. When
the debate referred to was in progress, he had
risen to an explanation, without attending to the
peculiar language in which the observations of
the gentleman were couched. Yesterday, how-
ever, he had read the printed report of his re-
marks, and perceived that the language was ca-
pable of a graver meaning than he had supposed,
and has therefore requested a friend to call the
attention of the gentleman to the passage in ques-
tion, in order that he might explain its true mean-
ing. He did not suppose that the gentleman ever
designed any unpleasant imputation, and took it
for granted that he would place it in a proper
light, when he wag made aware of the circum-
stance. His ready courtesy had shown him that
he was not mistaken.
For himself, he could only say, that, if in the
debate of the many exciting topics which might
arise, he encroached in any manner, however
slight, upon the feelings of any gentleman, he
would be glad to have his attention called to the
circumstance, in order that he might accord that
explanation which he should always take the
privilege of requiring from others.

The PRESIDENT called for reports of commit-
tees.
Their being no reports,
Mr. RIDGELY moved that the Convention pro-
ceed to the orders of the day.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The motion having teen agreed to, the Con-
vention resumed the consideration of the order of
the day, being the report submitted by Mr. DOR-
SEY, on the 11th ult., as Chairman of the com-
mitttee on the declaration of lights.
The pending question was on the adoption of
the 21st article, as yesterday amended.
The question was taken, and the amendment
was adopted.
The 22nd and 23rd articles of the bill were
read and adopted as follows :
Art. 22. That excessive bail ought not to be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
or unusual punishment inflicted by the courts of
law.
Art. 23. That all warrants, without oath, or
affirmation, to search suspected places, or to
seize any person or property, are grievous and
oppressive; and all general warrants to search
suspected places, or to apprehend suspected per-
sons, without naming or describing the place, or
the person in special, are illegal and ought not to
be granted.
The 24th article was read as follows :
Art. 24. That there ought to be no forfeiture
of any part of the estate of any person for any
crime except murder, or treason against the State,
and then only on conviction and attainder.
Mr. JENIFER moved to amend the said section,
by striking out all after the word " crime."
Mr. J. said he did not see that any case could
arise in the State of Maryland where a forfeiture
of property should take place after a criminal
execution. It would be a hard case that a fami-
ly already suffering the bitter results of the crimi-
nal acts of its head, should be visited also with
this additional infliction.
Mr. DENT offered a substitute for the said mo-
tion, to read as follows :
Strike out all the 34th article to the word
" treason," in the second line, and insert in lieu
thereof, the following:
" That no conviction shall work corruption of
blood, or forfeiture of estate except for."
Mr. JENIFER expressed his willingness to ac-
cept the substitute as a modification of his own
proposition,
Mr. MERRICK desired to suggest to his col-
league, (Mr. Jenifer,) that it might possibly be
well that he should modify his amendment. He
(Mr. M.,) did not know exactly the scope of his
colleague's views. But he, (Mr. M„) would
suggest, that the time might come when it not
only might be good policy, but due to justice,
that there should be a forfeiture of property
in case of treason. If it met the views of his
colleague, he, (Mr. M.,) thought that the object
might be answered by simply striking out the
words, "murder or."
He could not contemplate any crime as to