Mr. BISER said, that it be was called on to
vote on this question, he should be compelled to
vote against the proposition of the gentleman
from Queen Anne's. He referred to the speech
of the gentleman from Queen Anne's on Saturday
in favor of this very amendment, which he is
now disposed to defeat. That cogent argument
of the gentleman from Quean Anne's still rung in
his cars. He had act heard it answered, and unless
the gentleman himself would answer it, he
could not now consent to change his course.
Mr. SPENCER reminded the House that in some
remarks he made on Saturday, he had expressly
declared that he was in favor of biennial sessions.
He had then stated that ha would prefer a pro-
vision for three annual sessions to enable the Le-
gislature to pass the laws necessary to carry out
the requisitions of the new Constitution. But as
he could not effect that object, he had no course
left him but to move the amendment providing
that the question shall be submitted to the peo-
ple.
Mr. BISER said the gentleman from Queen
Anne had also stated that he was in favor of bi-
ennial sessions, because the people had decided
in favor of them; but that other gentlemen thought
that public sentiment was now opposed to them;
and the gentleman from Queen Anne had asked
if there was any gentleman who would be unwil-
ling to submit the question again to the decision
of the people ?
Mr. THOMAS apologized for rising to trouble
the House with any remarks, but as he had been
requested by the gentleman from Dorchester, not
now in his seat, to look after this question, and
as he felt something was due to his colleague who
was necessarily absent, he trusted he should be
permitted to say a very few words. He regreted
that he should have been brought before the
House so much more frequently by these circum-
stances than was agreeable to himself. He de-
sired now to ask a question of the gentleman from
Queen Anne for his own information. If he un-
derstood the present proposition offered by that
gentleman, it seemed to him to conflict both with
the views of that gentleman as it did with his
own. He had no objection to make to the clause
as to the time of the meeting of the two first ses-
sions of the Legislature. But he understood the
gentleman from Queen Anne as proposing to strike
out the sixth section, which fixes alimitation of
the duration of the subsequent sessions, which
he did not think was in accordance with the dis-
position of the House.
He was willing to vote to make it imperative
on the Legislature to hold two annual sessions,
by way of holding out the olive branch, and he
would advise all the friends of reform to take this
course. This would be equivalent to the bill as
it now stands, which gives to the Legislature the
power (which he believed the Legislature would
exercise) to sit twice in the first two years. And
if he understood this amendment it limits as the
bill before us limits, the third session to the 10th
of March. We shall then retain the important
provision for biennial sessions, commencing with
the year 1854. It should be borne in Bind that
there are propositions to be made) looking to a

codification of our laws, to a reform in the prac-
tice and of special pleading, and to such other
changes as will make the proceedings in our Courts
analogous to the practice of the Courts of Law
in some of the other States of the Union. If we
expect the Legislature to do this work, there
will be business much beyond the ordinary busi-
ness which comes before the Legislature, for its
action. Some of the best practioners of law in
our State may probably be willing to come to the
Legislature to be engaged in this employment
which will require great practical knowledge.
Now if you subject lawyers of this character to
the drudgery of two elections, which must be the
case, unless under one election they may attend
two sessions, he would put it to gentlemen on
tills floor, who are entirely competent to give him
an answer, whether these gentlemen could be induced
to canvas their counties twice over ? They
might be willing to make sacrifices to be elected
once to the General Assembly to assist in reform-
ing our Laws. The first business of the Legisla-
ture would be to lay off the new Congressional
Districts in the State, under the new apportion-
ment made by Congress under the new census by
which this State will loose one representative in
that body. They may then proceed to take up
the subject of the revision of our laws, with a
view to their codification. Before this can be
completed, they may adjourn from 1852 to 1853,
when they will find it necessary to resume the
work for the purpose of completing it. But should
it be required by the Constitution that anew elec-
tion shall intervene between these sessions, half
of those gentlemen who had commenced the
workmight be left at home, the whole task would
be recommenced and gone over again. He hoped,
therefore, that the friends of reform would accept
of the proposition now offered, and thus secure
one important article in the Constitution.
Mr. SCHLEY said the argument in favor of an-
nual sessions had been made on the ground that
a greater amount of labor than usual would be
imposed on the General Assembly, for the pur-
pose of enacting the laws necessary to carry out
the provisions of the new Constitution. He
thought this was a mistake. He was anxious
that there should be a codification of the laws of
the State, and the only way in which he thought
it ought to be done, would be for the Legislature
to appoint Commissioners to examine and codify
them. This would be a work requiring much
time; it will not be done in 1853 or 1853, and
probably not even in 1854. It is not possible for
a task of this magnitude to be completed by the
first meeting of the Legislature. It is very desi-
rable that some change should be made in the
practice, in relation to special pleading. The
great objection to the present mode of special
pleading is not, as is generally supposed, that it
is too special. Let it be stripped of its verbosi-
ty, and its antiquated forms, and that may be all
which may be found necessary. The only effect
of any laborious effort at change, may be to make
what is already special, still more special. Apart
from these two objects, what other business is
there which requires that there shall be annual
sessions of the Legislature ? The mere laying off