cipalities, the idea was an erroneous one, and
should not be tolerated for a moment by this Con-
vention. They were not here as representatives
of the counties, but as representatives of the
State of Maryland, returned merely by its muni-
cipal divisions. Before the Convention was
called upon to vote, he desired the gentleman to
state what theory he proposed to inculcate by the
amendment.
Mr. PARKE gave notice that he should offer the
following as a substitute for the said preamble:
"We, the people of Maryland, grateful to Al-
mighty God for our own freedom, in order to es-
tablish justice, maintain public order, and per-
petuate liberty, do ordain this Constitution.
ARTICLE ONE.
"Section 1. That the essential principles of lib-
erty and free Government, may be truly recogni-
sed, and unalterably established, we declare. "
Mr, DASHIELL then spoke in reply to the inquiry
of Mr. GWINN, and in vindication of the principle
intended to be asserted by his (Mr. D's.) amend-
ment. The sketch of Ilia remarks will be pub-
lished hereafter.
Mr. JENIFER could not discover any beneficial
effect, be said, that could result from the amend-
ment. He went for the substance, not for the
shadow. He would go as far as any man to pro-
test the interests of the counties, but be was not
willing to admit that he came here as a represen-
tative from Charles county only. If the gentle-
man intended that a new principle was to be en-
grafted on the Constitution, he (Mr. J.) would
like to understand precisely what it was.
Mr. GWINN said:
That the phraseology which the gentleman
proposed, was ambiguous in meaning. If intend-
ed only as a designation of the localities from
which we came, there was no serious mischief
in the words—but if, on the other hand, it was
meant as an assertion of the theory that the coun-
ties and city of Baltimore, were parties to the
old compact and to the new arrangement in their
municipal capacities—it was utterly unfounded.
And since the words which the gentleman pro-
posed to insert, were of a doubtful meaning, it
was better to adhere to terms, about which
there could be no mistake.
The theory of county compact had been urged
many times in the legislature. It had been re-
motely hinted at during the last session. But it
was strange that any one who took the least
pains to examine the history of the State
could use language which admitted by construc-
tion, of such a theory. He would state a few
facts, which would place the counties in their
true light, as constituent portions of the State.
The county of St. Mary's was undefined by
any boundaries when first alluded to in our early
records. It was the part of the Province which
lay around the infant colony.
The lilies of Kent county were equally uncer-
tain. It was the whole shore opposite to Kent la-
land. which was then a commanderate, as it was
termed. They were so termed only to distinguish
the localities to which reference was made. The

assembly, which sat in 1650, was composed of
fourteen members, chosen by eight hundreds. It
was in this year that the upper and lower Houses
were separated. The counties existing at that
time were geographical divisions only. The po-
litical power residing in the hundreds, into which
they were divided. In 1659, the lower House.
until then occasionally occupied by some members
who were summoned by the proprietor, was
made to consist of delegates only, and four were
called from each county. This county system
continued until 1681; and in the interval, two.
three, or four, were called from each county at
the pleasure of the proprietor. In 1682, the
number was reduced to two in each county by
ordinance; and in 1693, four were allowed to
each county in the lower House; and in 1716,
four was adopted as the permanent number for
each county, and two for each city or borough,
which might be created. The Constitution of
1776 adopted this law of 1716, in the organiza-
tion of the lower House. The counties were
then, what they had been in 1716, only corpora-
tions—some created by mere order in council,
and some by act of the assembly. The idea of
their political independency is utterly unfound-
ed.
The history of the Convention which adopted
the Constitution, shows this. The counties were
represented in the Convention equally, because
they were equal in the representation allowed un-
der the law of 1716. The same system was
adopted, because the inequality in population
was not then very marked, and for the reason,
also, that the existence of a war in which the
common safety was involved, made it inexpedient
to quarrel about details of power.
In the early Conventions, the counties voted as
counties. But it will be seen by reference to
page 176, of the journal of that Convention, that
the Constitution was adopted by a very different
rule. Until the 22d June, 1776, all votes were
determined by a majority of counties, and the
majority of a county delegation, had the right to
cast the vote of the county. Now, on the day re-
ferred to, it was resolved, that all votes should be
determined by a majority of members. Under
this rule any article could have been carried, and
the whole Constitution adopted by a minority
of counties. For instance, say there were twelve
counties—seven would be a majority. If three,
out of five delegates, could cast the vote of a
county, twenty-one would carry a measure,
against the fourteen negatives in the seven coun-
ties, and the twenty-five negatives in the five
counties, supposing them all to vote the same
way, making in all thirty-nine. But, when the
majority rule was adopted, this could no longer
be; and the minority of the counties might rule
the majority. These enquiries had been entered
into, when the reform bill was under discussion,
in the House of Delegates last year; but he made
no apology for renewing references which were
perhaps information to some present, and which
the theory stated, made necessary.
This theory of the political individuality of the
counties, was disproved by other circumstances
also. Most present were familiar with the suit