Mr. BUCHANAN. What will be the whole number
of which the House of Delegates will be
composed?
Mr. MERRICK. One hundred and two.
I had intended, continued Mr. M., to make
some general remarks. But the Convention is
not full, and I will reserve them to a more appro-
priate occasion.
Mr. THOMAS made a suggestion in regard to
the form of the report, which led to some conversation
between that gentleman, Mr. MERRICK,
and Mr. HOWARD.
Mr. DIRICKSON enquired of Mr. MERRICK, by
what rule he assigned to Dorchester and Worces-
ter five representatives, and to Somerset six ?
Mr. M. again read that portion of the report
and explained.
Mr. HARBINE rose to state, that as a member
of the committee, the report which had been read
by the Chairman (Mr. Merrick) had not his con-
currence. He was opposed to the ratio of four
thousand, and still more opposed to duplicating
that ratio for every additional member above
five. That would work injustice to the large
counties. Again, in reference to the very large
number of which it was proposed that the House
of Delegates shall consist, he differed with the
Chairman. Sixty or seventy, at the highest,
would be amply sufficient. As stated by the hon-
orable Chairman, a majority of the committee
were unable to agree upon any basis, and as &
matter of courtesy due that gentleman, consent-
ed that he should report his own views, reserv-
ing to themselves the light to act as each deemed
best. No one of the reporte now proposed to be
made embodied his opinions, or the opinions of a
majority of the committee. Having accomplish-
ed his object iii rising, he would not now go fur-
ther into the subject.
The President announced that the hour had
arrived for taking up the orders of the day.
Mr. HOWARD moved that the consideration of
the orders of the day be postponed for the purpose
of disposing of the pending question.
The question was taken and decided in the af-
firmative.
So the orders of the day were postponed.
Mr. LLOYD then rose and said, that he desired,
as a member of the committee to present a re-
port; but that as it was not exactly in form, he
should hereafter ask leave to withdraw it tempo-
rarily, in order to put it in proper form.
The report was received as follows:
RULE OF APPORTIONMENT.
Section 1st. The Senate shall be composed of
twenty-one members, for the election whereof,
each of the counties of the State and the city of
Baltimore shall be one Senatorial District, and
elect one Senator.
See. 2d. The House of Delgates shall consist
of eighty-one members; until the number of sixty.
six delegates be attained, every six thousand in-
habitants in each of the counties, and the city of
Baltimore, shall be entitled to one delegate; and
thereafter, twenty-five thousand inhabitants in

each of the counties and city of Baltimore shall
be entitled to one delegate.
Sic. 3d. If in any of the said counties, accord-
ing to the present population thereof, there shall
be over the said ratio of six. thousand, & fraction
exceeding three thousand; in that case the said
counties shall be entitled to a delegate for said
fraction.
RESULT:
Section 1st. The Senate shall consist of twenty-
one members whereof the several counties of
the State and the city of Baltimore shall elect
one Senator.
Sec. 2d. The House of Delegates shall consist
of eighty-one members whereof Allegany county
shall elect four, Anne Arundel county shall elect
five; Baltimore city shall elect twelve; Baltimore
county shall elect seven; Carroll county shall
'elect three, Caroline county shall elect two; Cal-
vert county shall elect two; Charles county shall
elect three; Cecil county shall elect three; Dor-
chester county shall elect three; Frederick coun-
ty shall elect seven; Harford county shall elect
three; Kent county shall elect two; Montgomery-
county shall elect three, Prince George's county
shall elect four; Queen Anne's county shall elect
two; St. Mary's county shall elect two; Somerset
county shall elect four; Talbot county shall elect
two; Washington county shall elect five; Wor-
cester county shall elect three members.
Which was read.
Mr. CHAMBERS said:
He would submit in the form of a minority re-
port, the views which he held in common with two
of his colleagues on the committee, (Messrs. Kent
and Dennis.) It was the plan adopted in 1836,
and then made part of the Constitution, in all re-
spects, except that it adopted the aggregate po-
pulation as a basis instead of that of federal num-
ber?. By the arrangement of 1836. the present
representation was to remain unchanged until
after the census of 1860, but this report antici-
pates the period for its commencement, and propo-
ses its adoption at once. The report would show
the instances in which the fractions exceeded one
half the number which by the rule adopted would
entitle the county to an additional representative,
leaving it without advice, for the House to dis-
pose of the question of fractions as it might deem
proper.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, a member of the com-
mittee, then presented and read the following
report:
The undersigned, a minority of the committee
on representation, beg leave to report the follow-
ing as a proper basis, being the same which was
arranged by compromise in 1836, and then made
part of the Constitution, with the exception only
that the plan now proposed is based upon the
gross amount of population instead of federal
numbers. The arrangement was designed to go
into effect after the census of 1860. The under-
signed recommend its adoption at this time as a
fair adjustment of a subject which this Conven-
tion has indicated as one proper for compromise.