bounds of the tract on which he has settled. See Judge Washington's opinion, Potts' lessee vs. Gilbert-his entry has no connection with the lines, the existence of which gave him notice, that the land was not vacantthe constructive possession by the lines of the survey, is where the party claims title in virtue of such line, an I the title forms his right or color of title; but where one enters, disclaiming those lines, treating them as forming no evidence of title in any one and enters into the possession as if unsurveyed land, we cannot adopt them for the purpose of establishing his possession, while he disowns all claim under them. They are not his land marks, because he disowns them. These lines give him notice, that the land is not vacant; he enters with a full knowledge that he can acquire nothing by settlement right; he may fix his eyes on the lines of another; he may set his heart upon the whole tract; but nothing can make it his but purchase from the owner, or an actual occupation by enclosure for twentyone years, of all circumscribed within the lines, for the owner in contemplation of law, and for every legal purpose, continues in the possession of every part not so occupied or inclosed." We have now clearly shown, that year after year and decision after decision, the supreme court have encroached on the rights of actual settlers, by assuming broader grounds; grounds not warranted by the custom and usages of the Land office, by the several acts of Assembly, relating thereto, or by the intention of the framers of these laws. For Improvements, see the following Acts of Assembly, where they are recognized: equally known by marked boundaries, as definite, positive, notorious and exclusive. We agree with the judge-"That where one enters under color of title, his possession is co-extensive with his title;" and we coincide in opinion, "that the owner of the survey remains in the possession of every part that he has not been actually excluded from by the occupation of another." But in our opinion that occupancy relates to the whole tract, and consequently the warrant holder was excluded from the whole tract of land or survey by such improvements, held in unobstructed possession for twenty-one years, being within his claim. Your committee are of opinion, that not only what is included within fence by the occupant, but the whole tract, as surveyed, if held in undisturbed possession for twenty-one years, is barred by the statute of limitations, and the warrant holder is entirely excluded from every part of such tract, and the settler is entitled to the tract within the bounds of the survey. It evidently being the intention of the law, to secure the improver in his labours and possession held for that period. The decision of the Supreme court has shaken all titles held by possession, and rendered insecure and uncertain what was formerly considered a good title by virtue of a quiet possession of a tract of land for twentyone years. Its tendency is alarming and if the Supreme court are suffered to encroach upon the rights of the actual settlers, by decisions which cannot be supported by acts of Assembly nor by the usages of the Land of fice, the northern counties will still continue a wilderness and all emigration to that section of the country, will be entirely prevented by the injustice the Legislature, to say whether the Supreme court is to receive their sanction and their countenance for the construction of a law inimical to the rights of the settler-rights secured to them by custom and usage, by established laws-and which ought to be the policy of the court to support, it being the policy of the state to protect, encourage and foster the actual settler. Act of 10th October, 1779, for raising £5,700,000. In the 11th section of this act, improvements are made tax-done to the actual settler. It now depends on able. Act of 7th April, 1787, for emitting bills of credit. Act of April 5th, 1782, act of March 12th, 1783-April 22, 1794, 22d Sept. 1794. Old improvements have been sanctioned by courts of justice, page 173, Smith's edition of laws-second volume; see also, page 176, Smith's edition of laws-second volume. Miller vs. Shaw, Remarks-In the opinion of your Committee, a resident settler on any tract of land is in possession not only of the lands within fence but of the whole tract, and twenty-one years must protect such settler in such possession, if it be continued during that period without disturbance by the warrant holder; it being consistent with sound policy, common sense, common justice, and common law. How can that man be called a trespasser, who settles on a tract of land, of the survey of which he is ignorant? If that principle were correct, farewell to the settlement of your forests and the final improvement of the state. It is a fact, well known, that a great portion of your wild land is held by dormant titles-titles that cannot be discovered by an inspection of the commissioners books, or at the Land office, because the clue to unravel the title is concealed. For the definition of the term actual settler, we would refer to several acts of Assembly. Sep. 16, 1785; the act of Assembly of this state contemplates as an actual settler, one who resides on the land and cultivates it. Act of 30th Sep. 1786, a settlement is defined to be an actual personal resident settlement, with a manifest intention of making it a place of abode, and the means of supporting a family. April 3d, 1792, alludes to similar settlements. Sept. 22d, 1794, refers to personal residence and raising of grain. The several acts of April 3d, 1804, January 27th, 1808, March 1st, 1811, all alluded to actual settlers. An actual settler may, in the strict meaning of the term, divide his claim: that is, he may live on one part, cut his grain and grass off another part, and wood off the third part; yet the whole may be considered, in the opinion of the committee, as one improvement or settlement, provided the several parts be contiguous and do not exceed four hundred acres. of the following resolutions: Your committee therefore recommend the adoption Surely a settler on a tract of land held by a dormant title, cannot be considered in the light of a trespasser; because if the land is not claimed by the warrant holder-if the warrant holder does not comply with the several laws of the state and make his claim known, certain and secure-such land can only be considered in Resolved, That the decisions or opinions of the Suthe view of your committee, as vacant, and the man who preme Court, to their construction of the statute of limsettled, improved and resided on such land, for twenty-itations, and the occupancy or possession of the improvone years undisturbed, must hold the whole tract in the bounds of the survey of such dormant title. We are of opinion that a settler, who makes an improvement on a tract, ignorant by whom it is held under an office title, does go on the same with something more than a color of title. He can hold possession of the whole tract, by virtue of his improvement, and if his cleared fields, are marked by definite boundaries, we say with propriety, the wild land adjoining may be er or settler, are contrary to the spirit, true intent and meaning of the acts of Assembly, and to the customs and usages of the Land office, and have a direct tendency to retard the settlement of the state, and are adverse to the rights of the settler. Resolved, That the Committee be discharged, and the subject connected with this report be recommended to the special, serious and early consideration of the next Legislature. TRIAL OF WILLIAM PENN. Notwithstanding a body of soldiers had taken possession of the meeting house in "Gracious street," Aug. 15th, 1670, William Penn preached in the immediate vicinity as before. On this, he was apprehended, committed by the lord mayor, and tried for the same, along with William Mead at the Old Bailey, on the first, third, fourth, and fifth of September following. On this occasion, the bench consisted of: Samuel Starling, lord mayor. 7. William Plumstead 7 by his being a juryman, apprehending him to be a person not fit to answer their abitrary ends."* James Cook, the first witness being called, swore that he saw Mr.Penn speaking to the people in Grace church street, but could not hear what he said, on account of the noise. Richard Read deposed exactly in the same manner, and to the same effect; but added, that he "saw captain Mead speaking to lieut. Cook, yet what he said he could not tell." The third witness was equally incompetent to prove any thing against Mr. Penn; and as "for captain Mead," said he, "I did not see him there." Mr. Recorder Howel. What say you, Mead, were you there? William Mead. It is a maxim of our own law, nemo tenetu accusare seipsum; which, if it be not true Latin, I am sure it is true English, "that no man is bound to accuse himself;" and why dost thou offer to ensnare me with such a question? Doth not this show thy malice? Is this like unto a judge that ought to be counsel for the prisoner at the bar? Recorder. Sir, hold thy tongue; I did not go about to ensnare you. Penn. We confess ourselves to be so far from recanting, or declining to vindicate the assembling of ourselves to preach, pray, or worship the eternal, holy, just God! that we declare to all the world, that we do believe it to be our indispensable duty to meet incessantly upon so good an account; nor shall all the powers upon earth be able to divert us from reverencing and adoring our God who made us. Alderman Brown. You are not here for worshipping God, but for breaking the law; you do yourselves great wrong in going on in that discourse. 5. Gregory Walklet 11. William Lever 6. John Brightman 12. John Baily. The indictment purported, "that William Penn and William Mead, the latter, late of London, linen draper, with divers persons to the jurors unknown, to the number of three hundred, did unlawfully assemble, and congregate themselves with force of arms, &c. to the dis- Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I guilty turbance of the peace of our lord the king; and that of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the William Penn, by agreement between him and Wil-end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that liam Mead, did take upon himself to preach and speak, in contempt of the said lord the king, and of his law, to the great disturbance of his peace," &c. hear us, may have a more direct understanding, I desire Having pleaded not guilty,' the court adjourned until the afternoon, and the prisoners being again brought to the bar, were there detained during five hours, while Recorder. You must not think that I am able to run house breakers, murderers, &c. were tried. On the 2d up so many years, and eversomany adjudged cases, of September, the same ceremony took place as before, which we call common law, to answer your curiosity. with only this difference, that on one of the officers pul- Penn. This answer, I am sure, is very short of my ling off the hats of the two prisoners, the lord mayor ex-question; for, if it be common, it should not be so hard claimed: "Sirrah, who bid you put off their hats? put on their hats again?" Recorder to the Prisoners. Do you know where you are? Do you know it is the king's court? Penn. I know it to be a court, and I suppose it to be the king's court. Recorder. Do you not know there is respect due to the court? And why do you not pull off your hat? Penn. Because I do not believe that to be any respect. Recorder. Well, the court sets 40 marks a piece upon your heads, as a fine for your contempt of the court. Penn. I desire it may be observed, that we came in to the court with our hats off (that is, taken off) and if they have been put on since, it was by order of the bench; and, therefore, not we, but the bench should be fined. to produce. Recorder. Sir, will you plead to your indictment? Penn. Shall I plead to an indictment that hath no foundation in law? If it contain that law you say I have broken, why should you decline to produce that law, since it will be impossible for the jury to determine or agree to bring in their verdict, who have not the law produced by which they should measure the truth of this indictment, and the guilt, or contrary, of my fact? Recorder. You are a saucy fellow; speak to the indictment. [At this time, several upon the bench urged hard upon the prisoner to bear him down.] Penn. I say it is my place to speak to matter of law, I am arraigned a prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned; you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed to make After this, the jury were again sworn, on which sir J. the best of my case, it is hard: I say again, unless you Robinson, lieutenant of the Tower, objected against Ed- show me, and the people, the law you ground your inward Bushel, as he had not kissed the book, and there-dictment upon, I shall take it for granted, your proceedfore, would have him sworn again; "though, indeed, it was on purpose to have made use of his tenderness of conscience in avoiding reiterated oaths to have put him Grace church street. ings are merely arbitrary. Recorder. The question is-Whether you are guilty of this indictment? *See a scarce and valuable tract, printed for William †Mr. Meade had been originally a tradesman in Lon-Butler, 1682, and entitled, "The people's ancient and don; but, during the civil wars, he, like many others, just liberties asserted, in the trial of Willam Penn and obtained a commission in the army, and was known by William Mead, at the sessions held at the old Bailey, &c. the appellation of Captain Mead. It is not at all im- against the most arbitrary procedure of that court." probable, that he took the same side as William Penn's "Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and father, and, indeed, his conduct on this occasion dis- write grievousness, which they had prescribed to turn plays somewhat of the republican intrepidity of those away the needy from judgment, and take away," &c. days. Isai. x. 1, 2. Penn. The question is not whether I am guilty of this indictment, but whether this indictment be legal?It is too general and imperfect an answer, to say it is the common law, unless we knew both where and what it is; for where there is no law, there is no transgression; and that law which is not in being, is so far from being common, that it is no law at all? Recorder. You are an impertinent fellow; will you teach the court what law is? It is Lex non scripta, that which many have studied thirty or forty years to know, and would you have me to tell you in a moment? ous company after them; and Mr. Penn was speaking -If they should not be disturbed, you see they will go on; there are three or four witnesses that have proved this, that he did preach there, that Mr. Mead did allow of it; after this, you have heard by substantial witnesses what is said against them. Now we are upon the matter of fact, which you are to keep to and observe, what has been fully sworn, at your peril. Penn. [With a loud voice, from the Baile Dock] I appeal to the jury, who are my judges, and this great assembly, whether the proceedings of the court are not most arbitrary, and void of all law, in offering to give the jury their charge in the absence of the prisoners. I say it is directly opposite to, and destructive of, the undoubted right of every English prisoner, as Coke, in the 2d Inst. 29, on the chap. of Magna Charter speaks. Recorder. Why ye are present; you do hear, do you not? Penn. Certainly, if the common law be so hard to be understood, it is far from being common; but if the lord Coke, in his Institutes, be of any consideration, he tells us that common law is common right, and that common right is the great charter of privileges confirmed, 9 Henry 3, 29, 25. Edward I, 1 and 2; Edward III. 8. Coke Instit. 2 p. 56. I design no affront to the court, but to be heard in my just plea, and I must plainly tell you, that if you will deny me Oyer of the law, which into the Baile Dock; and you of the jury take notice, you say I have broken, you do at once deny me an ac- that I have not been heard; neither can you legally deknowledged right, and evidence to the whole world, part the court before I have been fully heard, having at your resolution to sacrifice the privileges of English-least ten or twelve material points to offer, in order to men, to your sinister and arbitrary designs. invalid their appointment. Recorder. Take him away: my lord, if you take not some course with this pestilent fellow to stop his mouth, we shall not be able to do any thing to-night. Lord Mayor. Take him away, take him away, turn him into the Baile Dock. Penn. These are but so many vain exclamations: Is this justice or true judgment? Must I, therefore, be taken away, because I plead for the fundamental laws of England? However, this I leave upon your consciences who are of the jury (and my sole judges) that if these ancient fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and property, and are not limited to particular persuasions in religion, must not be indispensably maintained and observed, who can say he hath a right to the coat upon his back? Recorder. Be silent there. Penn. I am not to be silent in a case wherein I am so much concerned, and not only myself, but many thousand families besides. They now dragged him into the Baile Dock; but William Mead, being still left in court, spoke as follows: "You men of the jury, here I do now stand to answer to an indictment against me, which is a bundle of stuff, full of lies and falsehoods; for therein am I accused, that I met vi et armi, illicite et tumultuose. Time was when I had freedom to use a carnal weapon, and I thought I I feared no man; but now I fear the living God, and dare not make use thereof, nor hurt any man. You men of the jury who are my judges, if the record will not tell you what makes a riot, a rout, or an unlawful assembly, Coke, he that once they called the lord Coke, tells us, that a riot is when three or more are met together to beat a man, or to enter forcibly into another man's land, to cut down his grass, his wood, or break down his pales." Recorder. I thank you, sir, that you will tell me what the law is [Scornfully pulling off his hat.] Mead. Thou mayest put on thy hat, I have never a fee for thee now. Alderman Brown. He talks at random; one while some other religion; and now a quaker, and next a papist. Penn. No thanks to the court that commanded me Recorder. Pull the fellow down; pull him down. Mead. Are these proceedings according to the rights and privileges of Englishmen, that we should not be heard? Recorder. Take them away into the hole. The jury were now desired to go up stairs, in order to agree upon a verdict; and the prisoners remained in the "stinking hole." After an hour and a half's time, eight came down agreed, but four remained above, until sent for. The bench used many threats to the four that dissented; and the recorder, addressing himself to Mr. Bushel, said: "Sir, you are the cause of this distur bance, and manifestly show yourself an abettor of faction. I shall set a mark upon you, sir." Alderman Sir J. Robinson, lieut. of the tower. Mr. Bushel, I have known you near this fourteen years; you have thrust yourself upon this jury, because you think there is some service for you; I tell you, that you deserve to be indicted more than any man that hath been brought to the bar this day. Mr. Bushel. No, sir John, there were three score before me; and I would willingly have got off, but could not. Alderman Bludworth. Mr. Bushel, we know what you are. Lord Mayor. Sirrah, you are an impudent fellow; I will put a mark upon you! The jury being then sent back to consider their verdict, remained for some time; and, on their return, the clerk having asked in the usual manner: "Is William Penn guilty of the matter wherein he stands indicted, or not guilty?" the foreman replied, "Guilty of speaking in Gracious street." Court. Is that all? Foreman. That is all I have in commission. Foreman. My lord, this was all I had in commission. Here some of the jury seeming "to buckle to the questions of the court,” Mr. Bushel, Mr. Hammond,and some others, opposed themselves, and said "they allowMead. Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ad ip-ed of no such terms as an unlawful assembly:" at which sum. [It is shameful for a man who pretends to instruct, when he is confuted by his own accusation.] Lord Mayor. You deserve to have your tongue cut out. Recorder. If you discourse in this manner, I shall take occasion against you. Mr. Mead having been now also thrust into the Baile Dock, the following charge was given to the jury, in the absence of the prisoners: Recorder. You have heard what the indictment is. It is for preaching to the people, and drawing a tumultu the lord mayor, the recorder, sir J. Robinson, lieutenant of the tower, and alderman Bludworth took great occasion to vilifie them with the most opprobrious language," and this verdict not serving their turn, the recorder expressed himself thus: "The law of England will not allow you to part till you have given in your verdict, therefore go and consider it once more." On this the jury declared, that they had given in their verdict, and could give in no other. They withdrew, however, after demanding and obtaining pen, ink, and paper, and returning once more, at the expiration of half an hour, the foreman addressed himself to the clerk of the peace, and presenting the following decision, said here is our verdict: "We the jurors, hereafter named, do find William Penn to be guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly met together in Gracious street, the 14th of Aug. last, 1670; and that William Mead is not guilty of the said indictment. Foreman. Thomas Veer. Edward Bushel," &c. Lord Mayor. What! will you be led by such a silly fellow as Bushel' An impudent canting fellow; I warrant you, you shall come no more upon juries in haste; you are a foreman indeed! I thought you had understood your place better. Recorder. Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco; you shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict by the help of God, or you shall starve for it. Penn. My jury, who are my judges, ought not to be thus menaced; their verdict should be free, and not compelled; the bench ought to wait upon [for] them, but not forestal them. I do desire that justice may be done, and that the arbitrary resolves of the bench may not be made the measure of my jury's verdict. Recorder. Stop that prating fellow, or put him out of the court. Lord Mayor. You have heard that he preached, that he gathered a company of tumultuous people, and that they not only did disobey the martial power, but the civil also. Penn. It is a great mistake; we did not make the tumult, but they that interrupted us! The jury cannot be so ignorant as to think that we met there with a design to disturb the civil peace, since, first, we were by force of arms kept out of our lawful house, and met as near it in the street, as their soldiers would give us leave; and secondly, because it was no new thing, and it is known that we are a peaceable people, and cannot offer violence to any man. The agreement of twelve men is a verdict in law; and such a one being given by the jury, I require the clerk of the peace to record it, as he will answer at his peril. And if the jury bring in another verdict, contradictory to this, I affirm they are perjured men in law. Then looking towards them, he emphatically added, "You are Englishmen! mind your privilege, give not away your right!" * One of the jury having pleaded indisposition, and desired to be dismissed, the lord mayor said, "You are as strong as any of them; starve then, and hold your principles." Recorder. Gentlemen you must be contented with your hard fate, let your patience overcome it; for the court is resolved to have a verdict, and that before you can be dismissed. Jury. We are agreed! The court now swore several of its officers to keep the jury all night, without meat, drink, fire, &c. and adjourned to seven o'clock next morning, which proved to be Sunday. They were then brought up as before, when, having persevered in their verdict, Mr. Bushel was reproved as a fuctious fellow, by the lord mayor; on this he replied, that he acted conscientiously.' The other observed, that such a conscience would cut his throat; 'but I will cut yours,' added he, 'so soon as I can.' Mr. Penn now asked the recorder, if he allowed the verdict given in respect to William Mead? That magistrate replied, no; as they were both indicted for a conspiracy, and one being found 'not guilty,' and not the other, it could not be a verdict. Penn. If not guilty be not a verdict, then you make of the jury,and Magna Charta, but a mere nose of wax! I af firm that the consent of a jury is a verdict in law; and if William Mead be not guilty, I am clear, as I could not possibly conspire alone. VOL. IV. 2 9 The jury again received a charge; were sent out; returned, and presented the same verdict. On this, the recorder threatened Mr. Bushel, and said, "while he had any thing to do in the city, he would have an eye upon him!" The lord mayor termed him a pitiful fellow, and added, 'I will cut his nose.' Penn. It is intolerable that my jury should be thus menaced; Is this according to the fundamental laws? Are not they my proper judges by the great charter of England? What hope is there of ever having justice done, when juries are threatened, and their verdicts rejected? I am concerned to speak, and grievous to see such arbitrary proceedings. Did not the licut. of the tower render [treat] one of them (the jury) worse than a felon? And do you not plainly seem to condemn such for factious fellows, who answer not your ends! Unhappy are those juries who are threatened to be fined, and starved, and ruined, if they give not in verdicts contrary to their consciences. Recorder. My lord, you must take a course with that same fellow. Lord Mayor. Stop his mouth, jailor, bring fetters, and stake him to the ground. Penn. Do your pleasure; I matter not your fetters! Recorder. Till now, I never understood the reason of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards, in sufferiag the Inquisition among them; and certainly it will never be well with us, till something like unto the Spanish Inquisition be in England. The jury were once more required to give another verdict; Mr. Lee, the clerk, was also desired to draw up a special one, which he declined, and the recorder threatened to have the jurors carted about the city, as in Edward II's time. The foreman remonstrated in vain, that another verdict would be a force on them to save their lives; and the jury refused to go out of court until obliged by the sheriff. On this, the court immediately adjourned until next morning at seven o'clock, when the prisoners were, as usual, brought from Newgate, and, being placed at the bar, the clerk demanded is William Penn guilty, or not guilty? Foreman. Not guilty! Is William Mead guilty, or not guilty? Foreman. Not guilty! The bench being still dissatisfied, each of the jury was required to answer distinctly to his name, which being done, and they proving unanimous, the recorder spoke as follows: I am sorry, gentlemen, you have followed your own judgments and opinions rather than the good and wholesome advice that was given you. God keep my life out of your hands! But for this the court fines you forty marks a man, and [commands] imprisonment until paid. William Penn. I demand my liberty; being freed by the jury. Lord Mayor. No, you are in for your fines, for contempt of the court. Penn. I ask if it be according to the fundamental laws of England, that any Englishman should be fined, or amerced, but by the judgment of his peers, or jury? since it expressly contradicts the 14th and 29th chapter of the great charter of England, which says, "No freemen ought to be amerced, but by the oath of good and lawful men of the vicinage." Recorder. Take him away, take him away; take him out of the court. Penn. I can never urge the fundamental laws of England, but you cry, take him away, take him away! But it is no wonder, since the Spanish inquisition hath so great a place in the recorder's heart. God Almighty, who is just, will judge you for all these things. Both jury and prisoners were now forced into the Baile-Dock, for non-payment of their fines, whence they were carried to Newgate, These proceedings, of course, aroused the attention of a nation, justly jealous of the government of such a profligate and arbitrary prince as Charles II. and indignant at the conduct of such a judge as Howel. Sir Thomas Smith, about a century before, had considered the fining, imprisoning, and punishing of juries, to be violent, tyrannical, and contrary to the custom of the realm of England. While the celebrated Sir Matthew Hale, who had been chief baron of the exchequer, and chief justice of the king's bench, in this very reign, observed, in his Pleas of the Crown, p. 313, that it would be a most unhappy case for the judge himself, if the prisoner's fate depended upon his directions, and unhappy also for the prisoner; as, if the judge's opinion must rule the verdict, the trial by jury would be useless. composed of the counties of Berks and Schuylkill, shall meet at the house now occupied by John Baily, in Hamburg, in the county of Berks; the judges of the district composed of the counties of Dauphin and Lebanon, shall meet at the public house now occupied by John Wolfersberger, in Campbellstown, in the county of Lebanon; the judges of the district composed of the counties of Northumberland and Union shall meet at the house now occupied by Jacob Musser, in the borough of Lewisburg, in the county of Union; the judges of Edward Bushel, a citizen of London, whose name de- the district composed of the counties of Luzerne and serves to be handed down to posterity with applause, Columbia, shall meet at the house now occupied by immediately sued out a writ of habeas corpus. Upon the Lewis Horten, in Berwick, in the county of Columbia; return, it was stated, that he had been committed "for the judges of the district composed of the counties of that, contrary to law, and against full and clear evidence Bradford, Susquehanna and Tioga, shall meet at the openly given in court, and against the direction of the court house, in the village of Towanda, in the county of court in matter of law, he, as one of a jury, had acquit- Bradford; the judges of the district composed of the ted William Penn and William Mead, to the great ob counties of Northampton, Lehigh, Wayne and Pike, struction of justice." This cause was at length heard shall meet at the court house, in the borough of Northin the superior court; and, after a solemn argument be- ampton; the judges of the district composed of the fore the twelve judges, the above was resolved to be 'an counties of Lycoming, Centre, Clearfield, M'Kean and insufficient cause for fining and committing the jury.'— | Potter, shall meet at the house now occupied by AlexThey were accordingly discharged, and they brought ander Mahon, in Lycoming county; the judges of the acions for damages. Journal of Jurisprudence. district composed of the counties of York and Adams, shall meet at the house now occupied by John and Henry Zell, in the borough of Hanover, in the county of York; the judges of the district composed of the counties of Cumberland and Perry, shall meet at the court house, in the borough of Carlisle, in the county of Cumberland; the judges of the district composed of the counties of Huntingdon, Mifflin and Cambria, shall meet at the court house, in the borough of Huntingdon; the judges of the district composed of the counties of Fayette and Greene, shall meet the house of Jeremiah Davidson, in Luzerne township, Fayette county; the jud ges of the district composed of the counties of Bedford and Somerset, shall meet at the house now occupied by John Statler, Allegheny; the judges of the district composed of the counties of Beaver and Butler, shall meet at the house formerly occupied by Jacob Kelker, in the town of Harmony; the judges of the district composed of the counties of Erie, Crawford and Mercer, shall meet at the court house, in the town of Meadville, in the county of Crawford; the judges of the district composed of the counties of Venango, Warren, Armstrong,Indiana and Jefferson, shall meet at the house now occupied by Matthew Hosey, in Armstrong county. APPORTIONMENT BILL. An act to fix the number of Senators and Representatives and form the state into districts, in pursuance of the provisions of the constitution. SECT. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That until the next enumeration of the taxable inhabitants, and an apportionment thereon, the Senate, at a ratio of 7,700, shall consist of 33 members, and be apportioned as follows: No. Districts. Members. 1. Philadelphia City shall be a district & elect 2. Philadelphia County 3. Montgomery 4. Chester and Delaware 5. Bucks 6. Berks and Schuylkill 7. Lancaster 8. Dauphin and Lebanon Northumberland and Union 9. 10. Luzerne and Columbia 2 do 3 11. Bradford, Susquehanna,&Tioga do 12. Northampton, Lehigh, Wayne and Pike 1 1 2 aforesaid, That in those districts which are composed of and the return judges shall meet at the court house, in more than one county, the judges of the district elec- the boraugh of Easton, tions within each county, after having formed a return of the whole election within such county, in such manner as is or may be directed by law, shall send the same by one of their number to the place hereinafter men. tioned, within the district of which such county is a part, where the judges so met shall cast up the several county returns, and execute under their hands and seals, one general and true return for the whole district, viz: The judges of the district composed of the counties of Ches- and the return judges shall meet at the court house, in Indiana & Jefferson, do ter and Delaware shall meet at the court house, in the the borough of Indiana, borough of West Chester; the judges of the district |