-whether it be better to appoint, or to elect-whether to appoint for à term of years, or during good behavior-whether to elect again according to good behavior, or not were all great questions, to be carefully canvassed, and upon which, he confessed, that his mind was perplexed: but, u pon one point, he had no hesitation to declare his opinion that we ought not to make fish of one, and flesh of the other. He contended, that we ought not to act in such a manner, as to sweep away, at once, all the inferior Magis trates, whilst we truckled to the superior, and gave them a prolonged exis tence. He would say, that we should not, by a rash blow, destroy one or the other. He was disposed to put them all on the same footing. Let them all remain, or all go at once, or gradually. But let it be done systematically. He had given a vote this morning, which he did not altogether like; but he had given it in consequence of his conviction that the system of jurisprudence should be a perfect whole. This was a subject of the highest magnitude--one upon which no debate was to be spared, and every thing connected with it should be done with great deliberation. He confessel, that little versed as he was, in Parliamentary practice, he really did not know how to act so as to attain his object. He could wish that some gentleman would propose a resolution which would effect the purpose which he had in view. He trusted that the Convention would go into the consideration of the article on the Judiciary.

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, said that there were some things in the amendment which he did not like, and some that he thought ought not to be in it. With regard to the proposition of the gentleman from Lycoming, (Mr. FLEMING) it appeared to him (Mr. D.) to be full of exceptions. The objections which existed to it, had been, in his opinion, fully exhibited by the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. PORTER).

Mr READ, of Susquehanna, wished to state, that the amendment provided that the Legislature should divide the State into convenient districts, consisting of three or four townships, so that in some districts a circuit of several miles would exist with a single Justice. He would ask gentlemen to look to the inconvenience of electing Magistrates in districts composed of so many townships, where individuals would have to travel fifteen or twenty miles, to attend the election,

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, said that ke took an exception to the language of the amendment directing the Legislature to divide the State into "such convenient districts as shall or may be designated by law". It appeared to him, that they should be elected by the townships, the boroughs. or the wards. These petty matters ought not to be left to the Legislature. If we could not settle them at once, they ought to be left to the people themselves, the county Commissioners, or the courts. He had not made up his mind; but, as at present advised, he believed that the number of Justi ces in each township, borough, or ward, had better be left to the people of each borough, township, or ward. The number of taxables was not always an indication of the amount of business done in the place, as it de pended upon circumstances connected with the avocation of the inhabi tants. It was better, therefore, to permit the people to regulate the number themselves. He should consequently vote against the amendment.

Mr. DARLINGTON said that he believed, on a very slight examination of the

hose who wished the number of Magistrates to be appointed, to depend upon the number of taxab'e inhabitants. He could not see the force of the objections of the gentleman from Allegheny, in regard to the number of Justices to which the inhabitants of townships, boroughs, &c., would be entitled. If it was left to the people of a county to fix the number, they might be operated upon in times of high political excitement, to make an unequal distribution. Some districts, too, would have more Magistrates, and some less, according as the spirit of litigation predominated. He maintained that it should be left to the Legislature, through the medium of he County Commissioners, or the courts, to fix the number, or there would necessarily and unavoidably be great inequality in the distribution. le thought that the gentleman from Allegheny, on a more mature considration of the matter, would bring his mind to that conclusion. A division nto townsips, boroughs and wards, would, in his (Mr. DARLINGTON'S) pinion, be any thing but a fair criterion by which to be guided in fixing he number. In the county of Somerset, if he had been correctly informd, there was a greater amount of law business done than in the wealthy nd populous county of Chester, which contained four times as many nhabitants as the former. He hoped, therefore, that no gentleman would on'end for the adoption of that mode of proceeding. In the county of McKean, there were two townships; in one of which, there were but welve taxable inhabitants, and in the other sixteen. Would any one say hat a Justice was wanted in these townships? In the township of Coalico, in Lancaster county, there were nearly one thousand taxable nhabitants. How unequal, therefore, would it be to give the town of Sergeant, in McKean county, the same number of Justices as would be iven to the large township of Cocalico, in Lancaster county. He reeated, then, that the Legislature must be left to fix the number. He ould conceive that there would be no difficulty in that respect The entleman from Montgomery has said, that the Legislature, heretofore, has onsidered the Governor entitled to decide what should be a competent umber of Justices of the Peace for each district, and that it was not, onstitutionally, in the power of the Legislature to limit them. Such ay have been the understanding of the Legislature, but he (Mr. D.) had een under the impression that the number might have been limited by iw, and that the Legislature might say what was 66 a competent umber", within the meaning of the present Constitution. Be that as may, however, the amendment which he (Mr. D.) had submited, gave > the Legislature the power to establish the districts in each county, and o direct the number of Justices that should be elected in each district. The gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. FULLER,) and the gentleman from leaver, (Mr. AGNEW,) contended that every township should form a disict. Now, should the proposed amendment be adopted, what would the egislature do? They would certainly say, that each township in those ounties, (Fayette and Beaver) should form a separate district, if such was he wish of their citizens; but they would also be at liberty to say, that wo or more adjoining townships in Chester, or any other county, should orm a district, should such be the desire of their citizens; and thus all ortions of the Commonwealth could be made satisfied with such an arangement. Mr. D. concluded, by expressing a hope, that the amend ment which he had offered, would be agreed to.

Mr. M'DOWELL trusted, that the amendment of the gentleman from Chester would not be adopted. Presuming that the election of Justices of the Peace would take place at the same time as the county elections,” he felt confident in saying that it would be more acceptable to the people, that each township, borough, or ward, should be an election district, and that the Legislature should not have the power to say that a whole county should be one district, as it would have, if the amendment of the gentle man from Chester should prevail. He wished to prevent the Legislature from ever putting townships together, and blending them into one district. He was in favor of constituting the townships little Commonwealths, for the transaction of their local business. There was no difficulty in reference to large and small townships. It might be left to the Legislature to fix the number for each township, and to say to the small ones, which did not want a Justice, that they need not elect one. The division into townships, would not be an obligation on a small township, to elect a Justice when they did not want one. But while it was given to the Legislature to fix the number, he did hope that the Constitution would declare that the several townships, and wards of cities, and boroughs, should constitute districts, for the elections of Justices of the Peace.

Mr. AYRES, of Butler, said that a difficulty was suggested to his mind, which made it unpleasant to him to vote. one way or the other. He wished to know, whether a township Justice of the Peace, elected only by the people of a township, was to have jurisdiction, as Justices now have, all over the county? If it was the intention, the principle was wrong. He believed, that no Justice should have jurisdiction beyond his constituents. If the townships were to elect Justices of the Peace where jurisdiction was to extend over the whole county, he was against it, because he had no idea of going to a township authority, to elect a Justice of the Peace, with such extended jurisdiction.

The question was then taken on the amendment, and it was rejected— yeas 9; nays, 96.

YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Chandler, of Chester, Darlington, Gearhart, M'Call, Russell, Serrill, Sill, Thomas-9.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bedford, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey, Chambers, Chauncey, Clarke of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Crain, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay. M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pennypacker, Polock Porter, of No.thampton, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Scheetz. Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-96.

The amendment was then modified, by striking therefrom the words following, viz: "Except those first chosen under this amendment, who shall be classed as by law may be provided, and in such nianner that one equal fifth part of the said Justices in the several counties, shall go out of office annually thereafter".

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, moved to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the word "section", and inserting the following: Such

several wards, boroughs, and townships, for a term of five years, as a majority of the voters of the districts may determine by ballot, after this Constitution shall be adopted, and every five years thereafter, in such manner as shall be directed by law".

Mr. BELL, of Chester, moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, rose, he said, to speak against the motion; and he would give notice, that he would oppose it, every day it should be made before the time fixed upon to adjourn.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, asked what was the hour?

Mr. EARI.E proceeded: He would thank the gentleman not to interrupt him. He had had his turn. Gentlemen professed to be very anxious to get home to their families, after having disposed of the question of the Judiciary. He was in hopes that the Convertion would get at the report on the Judiciary, and finish it before we adjourned. Now, these motions to adjourn, before the regular time, had the effect of preventing us from finishing our business. He had observed, that the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. DARLINGTON) was very apt to make motions of this sort. He was sorry that the gentleman from Adams, and the gentleman from Franklin, and others, who had talked against lavishing away the public money, had not called for the yeas and nays, on motion to adjourn before the hour had arrived. For his own part, he wanted to see who they were, " ho wished to expend the money of the people.

Mr. BELL of Chester, said, it wanted three minutes of one o'clock. A great deal had been said about the people's money, and the gentleman (Mr. EARLE), seemed to be courting the people more than others, who had contributed his full share towards swelling the expenses of this Convention. Mr. B. was proceeding to state some facts of a private characterwhen he was interrupted by

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, who called him to order.

After a word or two from Mr. BELL, Mr. M'DOWELL, and Mr. EARI.E, The question was taken on the rising of the committee, and decided in the affirmative.

The Convention then adjourned.

THURSDAY AFTERNOON, 4 O'CLOCK.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into committee of the whole on the sixth article of the Constitution, Mr. CHAMBERS, of Franklin, in the Chair.

The question pending, being on the amendment of Mr. FULLER, to the amendment of Mr. FLEMING, as follows, viz:

"Such number of Justices of the Peace and Aldermen elected in the several wards, borouglis, and townships, for a term of five years, as a majority of the voters of the district may determine by ballot. after this Constitution shall be adopted, and every five years thereafter, in such manner as shall be directed by law".

Mr. FULLER said, he had been induced to offer this amendment, be

He offered it with great deference, and thought that it might induce some gentleman to suggest a proposition more acceptable in its character. It might be necessary for him to state, in a few words, some advantages which he thought this amendment possessed over others. The great objection which had been urged against the report of the committee was, that it did not provide for a fixed and suitable number of Justices. That was the cause of complaint in some districts. Many had more than were necessary, and had to sustain a larger number than were absolutely necessary for the benefit and welfare of the county in which they acted.This was a question of very great importance, and the various propositions which had been made, all appeared to him to be objectionable. To govern the number of Justices of the Peace, by the number of taxables, might act oppressively on some parts of the State, by giving them more Justices of the Peace than would be sufficient for them, while to others it would not apportion enough. There are many districts where the population is agricultural, which do not require so many Justices of the Peace, as where the population of the districts is engaged in manufacturing and commercial pursuits and improvements. In that statement every gentle man would bear him out. Could there be any reasonable objection, then, to leave this to be regulated by the people of the districts, in their several boroughs, wards, and townships? Could there be any objection to leaving it to the people, in their several boroughs, wards, and townships, to say how many Justices of the Peace they desire. Would it not be productive of a more full and correct expression of public opinion? The number would thus be fixed in the district, and it would require a majority of the votes to say how many. This appeared to him to be the best mode we could arrive at to identify the number of Justices proper for each district. As to leaving it to the Legislature to determine the number, that is leaving it as it is in the present Constitution, which directs that a competent number be appointed for an indefinite term-a provision which has led to the abuses which have been complained of. The number is often greater than a majority of the people of the district would wish. Another advantage of his amendinent was this, that if a majority of the voters of a district should decide that two Justices were not necessary, in these districts where there have been two, one of them could be dropped at the succeeding election, while if they decided that one was not enough, they could determine to increase the number. The number could be fixed more understandin ly by the people, than by the Legislature. Every gentleman, who had had experience in the Legislature, was aware of the manner in which additional Justices of the Peace were assigned. when it was left in the hands of that body. The influential men, in any one district, could so arrange the matter as to have an additional number ap pointed, by bringing their influence to bear in the district, and upon the members of the Legislature. It afforded an opportunity to gentlemen to influence the appointment of a certain number of Justices, against the sense of the majority of the people. For these reasons he had proposed his amendment.

Mr. EARLE suggested the propriety of so modifying the amendment, as to leave the term of years to be fixed by the people.