Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-01-12

pectcd that Loudoun after this uDgr attempt
would support the claims of Franklin? If the motion
succeeded, and Loudoun was deprived Of her Sd
member. what assurance was there that Franklin
wou,I get him? Other ccunties-Dnwiddie, Chcs |
tcrfed-would put IN a claim to him and ieiusticc
might be done to Loudoun, without Obtaining any
benefit to Franklin.
:; MIR. Townes replied His obi;..t WAS To rot mn
additional member for Franklin and he and his COL
league differed to the road safest to travel
AS to the fear that Loudoun would change her vote
IN favor OF frank'n-he presumed that every gentle
mar acted under sense of honor and Justice and he
had no doubt the Loudoun delegation would act by
this rule. 1t was painful to differ from his col,ea
but nc thought 1t right to take member from Lou
aoun. nus colleague was shocked at the attempt to
take member from Loudoun-yet Loudoun, with a
white population OF 1000, was given three members
when --. 1--WE could not hear the county, with
white population OF 5000, had but one.
Ny. Nicholas explained why he should vote against
the motion. The course he had pursued upon the
motion of the gentleman from Richmond, (Mr
Neale,) manifested his determination to vote on
general principles, and not on local considera-
tons. Ii was more important that the treat
divisions OF the State should have their lust weiubt
than that this weight should be distributed accu-
ratcly among the counties of the same division;
u i,ondounSiR his opinion, was not allowed more
the Eaztebad contendcd. If the member was
taken from Loudoun, to whom was it to be Civ
en-? Was Caroline better entitled than Spottsyiya
MIA, or Louisa than Chesterfield, Fresh cause for
III.
after all, what influence would one Rember have
on Legislation, We should never close our labors.
if we sa'd here Till every county was satisied--and
he thought it best unless the members OF District
could agree among themselves to adhere firmly Ia
the nppofiionmcnt OF the Committee
! Mr.. Fhzbugh said he had been willing from the
first f"r the question to be taken without debate.
lie now to enquire If any st en- could he taken To
put IN end 10 what seemed interminables Could the
previous question be taken? The Chair thought it
would produce no practical resultand that tho on
| ~ resource was in the good sense ofmembers.
MIR. Cnbe!l expressing his surprze at the attempt
to put a gsg in the mouths of members proceeded
| TO comincn, on the course of his colleague fMr
Iownes) which was calculated TO lose member to
the District which he represented
Mr. Scott explain why should vote TO take mem
Der iom Loudoun and give INN Franklin He thong t there
was no necessity for any coun'y having three menbers-ba,
prove his sincerity in this opinion, he fac, which
been proposed there which gave county Fauoue three
members, and AT is instance, had been taken OF I'm pnc
tee, Loudoun conIrnued the and Congressional
Districts of which she was part effect she had Sena
Tor and Member OF Congress to herself Was this su
as follows " Wv "'e''''
Avrs-Messrs. P. p. Barbour, Jones, w. Leigh,
s. Taylor, Giles, Brodnax, Gromgoole Alexnndor,
Goode, J. Y. Mason, Trrzvant, Claiborne. tJrnu
hart, Randolph, William Leigh, Logan, VenabIe
stanard, Holiday, Roane, w. P. Taylor, Morris,
oIarnett, J. s. Barbour, Scott, II. Marshall. Green
pazewell Loyal, Prentis, Grigsby, Branch, Yownes
Martin, Rose, Coalter. Perrn-37
NoEs-Messrs. ]. Marshall, Tyler. Nicholas.
11Pton, Anderson, cohinan, Harrison, Williamson,
Baldwin. M'Coy, Moore, Bcirne, Smith, Miller Bax-
ter, Madison, Mercer. Fzhugh, Henderson, Osborn.
Cooke Powell, Griggs, ]. NJ. Mason, Naylor, Do
MADISON, Boyd Pendieton, George, M'MiIIan, u.
Campbell, Gyare, Cloyd, Chapman, Mathews, Ogles-
gen. a. Campbell, Wilson, Clayton, w Campbell.
Clayton Saunders Cabell, Stuart Pleasapts Gordon
thompson hiassie, Bates: Ncale, Joynes, Bayly, Up
shur--58. ~'''' "
Mr. Stuart now again brought forward b;s ,,,; .,
member n1 orn brunswick, and give him Franklin.
into minute thorough mvrsgarion Of ,be Iel,; VIM
oil the two counties, on all het =. 1859
taking om Brunswick Which wss seded Is on
Affirmative, by the following
r, , AYEs-Messrs. Anderson. Coffnnn, Harrison,
w !iIamson BALDWIN, NJ Coy, Moore, Smith, Miller
Berne, Baxter. Mercer, Ftzhugh, Henderson Osborn
Cooke, Powell, Griggs. ]. TT. Mason, Naylor. Don
aldson, Boyd, Pendeton, George, M'M,llan, Z.
lam Samppen, byaTs Cioyd Chapman, Mathews. Og-
Morgan, a. Campbell, Wilson, Scott, Green, "
Campeii Ciaytor Saunders, Townes Cabel Martin.
stuart, Thorlpson-49
NO M9ss :; , p p Barbour, Jones, B. W.
Leigh, s. Taylor, Giles, Brodnax Drornpoole. Alex |
ander Goode,.J Marshall, Tyler Nicholas, Clonton
j. Y. Mnson, TrezvaEt, Claiborne, Uroniert. Ran |
dolph, W. Leigh Logan, Vsrablc, Madison, stanard,
r'oIaGay, hoanc' W. 2. Taylor, Morris, Garnett,
It's, GrIgsby Branch. Peasants, Gordon, NTassc.
i5ates, Neaie, Rose, Coater, Joynes Bayly UpsI,ur
Ierr,n-16.
The question was then put OH gvioo him n Fra ,t 49,,
thus decided ~ " ' al"
ATEs--Messrs.J Marshall Nicholas, Copton, An
derson, Column, Harrison, Williamson. Balw,n.
s5l,Coy. Moore, Bsirne, Smith Miller Baxter, Ran
aa4qph' Logan, Madison, p. Z. Barbour, Sanard,
Mercer, Fitzhugh, Henderson, Osborn, Cooke
Powell, Griggs,J. NJ. Mason, Naylor, Donaldson
Boyd, Pendleton, George, MMian. e. Campbell
iByaTs' w. P: Taylor, Morris, Cloyd, Chapman,
n W Oglesby, Duncan Laidev, Summers See,
Doddrldge, Morgan, a. Campbell, Wilson. J s.
barbour, Scott, Green, T. Marshall, LovaIl, W.
Campbell! Clayton, Saunders, Branch. Townos
CabeIl, Martin Stuart Peasants, Gordon T,bomp
Upshur-72. ''''
Nors.Messrs. Jones', p. W. Leigh, s. TAYLOR,
I,iles, BFodnax, DromgooIe, Alexander, Goode
IyIer, ); Y. Mason, Trezvant, Clairborne, Urqu
3aft, W Leigh, Venabie, Hoiaday, Roanc, Garnet
fazcweil, Pren:is, ]. Crgsby Joynee perr;n-9a
Mr. Nayor moved TO amend the senatorial arrangement by
aking Hardy from Shenandoah Chose forming dis