St. Mary's and Kent Island counties. An equal
representation was not given by St. Mary's to
Kent Island. One representative was given to
one—two to another—three to a third election
district, in St. Mary's, and the whole apportion-
ment appeared to have been made with strict re-
ference to population. This example of our
fathers, he, (Mr. T.,) was ready and willing to
follow, so far as respect was paid to the number
of the people, in distributing to them political
power. And if other members of the Conven-
tion would consent to act on the same obviously
fair principle, the Constitution could readily be
formed.
After some further remarks from Mr. DA-
SHIELL,
Mr. McHENRY rose, not for the purpose, he
said, of prolonging the discussion, but to call the
attention of the gentleman from Somerset, (Mr.
Dashiell.) to the fact that the old bill of rights,
framed in 1776, opened with the very words
which were reported by the committee on the bill
of rights, as a part of the new Constitution. And
if it was not thought ambiguous then, was it
more so now ?
Mr. DASHIELL said, that no such theory as he
referred to, was then dreamt of.
Mr. MCHENRY said, nor was it dreamt of now,
except, perhaps, by a very few persons.
But, Mr. McH. said, he had risen to demand
the previous question.
Mr. MERRICK desiring to say a few words,
Mr. MCHENRY withdrew the demand for the
previous question.
Mr, MERRICK then said:
He should vote against the amendment for a
very plain reason. He thought it wisest and best
to adhere, as closely as possible, to the language
of the old Constitution.
The preamble reported by the committee was
as near to the language of the old Constitution,
as it well could be. It was abridged by leaving
out two or three words, but the substance remain-
ed the same. The two preambles, in substance,
were identical.
He had never regarded the counties as inde-
pendent political communities—he had never re-
garded them as a federative system; and the dis-
cussion of the principle upon which the political
power of the State was to be apportioned, was
inappropriate here.
Mr. McHENRY now renewed the demand for
the previous question.
There was a second; and
The main question was ordered.
Mr. DASHIELL asked the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered, and having been taken,
resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Cham-
bers of Kent, Kent, Bond, John Dennis, Dashiell,
Hodson, Bowie, Sprigg, Bowling, Dirickson,
McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs and Kilgour.—
17.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Donaldson, Wells,
Randall, Brent of Charles, Merrick, Jenifer,
Buchanan, Bell, Welch, Dickinson, Sherwood of
Talbot, Chambers of Cecil, Miller, Tuck, McCub-

bin, Spencer, Grason, George, Thomas, Shriver,
Gaither, Biser, Stephenson, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Carter, Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore
city, Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcom-
er, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Davis, Wa-
ters, Anderson, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Smith,
Parke, Shower and Cockey—49.
So the amendment was rejected.
The question was then stated to be on the sub-
stitute amendment of Mr. PARKE.
Mr. JENIFER thought that the preamble as it
stood, embraced every thing essential. We bad
lived under it sixty or seventy years without in-
convenience, and could still continue to do 80.
Mr. RANDALL desired, he said, to point out a
substantial difference between the declaration
which the Convention was now making, and that
which our fathers made in '76. The amendment
was in strict conformity with the powers under
which this Convention was acting. The delegates
of '76 made a Constitution. The delegates in
this Convention were to make one, but only to
recommend it to the people. The first was the
declaration of the delegates; this, if ever it be-
came a declaration, was to be the declaration of
the people themselves. In adopting the amendment,
the Convention would be following a safe
precedent, that of the Constitution of the United
States, and of the Constitution of several of the
States.
Mr. B.. then moved to amend the preamble
of the report of the committee, by striking out
all of said preamble, and substituting in lieu
thereof, the following:
"We, the people of Maryland, grateful to Al-
mighty God for our civil and religious liberty, in
order to secure the perpetuity of these blessings,
do declare."
Mr. R. said, that the provision was similar to
that which had been adopted in seven or eight of
the Constitutions of the States. He thought the
recognition of our gratitude to Almighty God,
for the blessings he had bestowed upon us as a
people, would come with a high and holy opera-
tion upon the public mind.
Mr. PARKE said, that the great object of his
amendment, was to acknowledge our gratitude
to Almighty God for the signal blessings which
he had bestowed upon us, and to use the words,
"we the people," in connection with the decla-
ration of rights. To ensure the success of that
object, he was willing to accept the amendment
of the gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Ran-
dall.) The law which called this Convention
together, got its vitality by the will of the peo-
ple. The Constitution which this Convention
might make, could receive its vitality only in the
same way. And when the members of this Con-
vention were in their graves, this declaration
would still stand as the declaration of the peo-
ple.
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER now offered his substi-
tute for the preamble, as follows:
" We, the people of the State of Maryland, by
our delegates in Convention assembled at the city
of Annapolis, taking into our most serious con-