the committe could now co.-.ie ro adecifion as Well, or better than at any other time—lt is a quettion with some gentlemen whether residence lhall be requisite to citizenlhip—this it appeared neceflary to determine previous to any further difenffion —as the question will continually occur, till the sense of the committee is known—several other questions which depend on this, may now be de cided,intliis way the mind of the committee maybe known, after which the bill may be recommitted to a feletft committee who may arrange the se veral parts of the bill so as to meet the general idea more fully. The motion for the committee's rising was car ried in the affirmative. It was then voted that the bill be recommitted to a feledt committee confiftingofa member from every State. The House resumed the consideration of the bill for the aa(ied laws regulating the time of elections—and jrefumed that the Legislature would never dele gate to any man, or men, the power of determin ing the ratio of representation. Mr. Lawrance was in favor ofrecommiting the bill : He obfervcd, that it appeared to him, that the rule or ratio of representation ought to be determined previous to ascertaining the number of inhabitants—as in all probability that rule would be agreed to with less prejudice and par tiality, while the contingencies which may affect it, are unknown. Mr. Jackson observed, that this suggestion is an artifice, covered however with too thin a veil not tobefeen thro—it is too unsubstantial to sup port itfelf—the Constitution has fettled the point already. He then recited those clauses which particularly point out the number of represen tatives which each State is entitled to elect, pre vious to any a&ual enumeration—the Constituti on plainly directs an enumeration therefore, be fore the ratio of a future representation lhall be fettled. Mr. Smith, (S. C.) observed, that the ratio of representation is already proposed by Congrefsin the amendments sent out to the Legislatures: He hoped that nothing would be done to impede the progress and ratification of those amendments. Mr. Sedgwick said, that when he came forward ■with the proposition, he supposed it founded in fiich fair and equal principles, that he did not an ricipate the finalleft objection would have been made by any gentlemen whatever. It is a (imple proportion that juitice should be done—that a more equal representation should be attempted, and effected—lf inequalities do exilt, and that they do, is very evident—can any gen tleman object to a remedy ? Some other observations were made, and then the motion for recommitting the bill to a com mittee of the whole House was put and carried in the affirmative. FRIDAY, Feb. j A memorial of Joseph Henderfon, and John Carnes, executors to the estate of Edward Carnes, deceased, was read, and referred to the Secretary of the Treasury The report of the committee on the memorial if Roger Alden, was taken into confederation— this report after dating the services performed by Mr. Alden, in consequence of the charge which devolved on him by having the custody of the papers and records of the late Congress, pro poses rhat he should be allowed a f;dary at the rate of rooo dollars per annum, during the time he been employed as aforeFaid, alio necellkry e^-i nCe3 — ailC * tl,att ' le clerk which has been his alfiftant, be allowed at the rate of 500 dollars per annum. This report was amended by adding these words after "per annum"— Until the Secretary of State shall enter on the duties of his office —and then ac cepted, and referred to the committee 011 appro priations. The Secretary at war having reported on fun clry petitions and memorials referred to him— the reports were read, and laid on the table. In committee of the whole on the bill for the remiflion, or mitigation of lines, forfeitures and penalties in certain cases.— The bill was read and di feu lied in paragraphs. A motion was made that the following words, viz. " Offering to con. fefs judgjnent for the fame" previous to relief being granted, should be struck out. Mr. Ames said h" was indifferent whether the words were retained or struck out—he wished however that the principles of the bill should be well understood—he conceived that a ftricl ad herence to rule even if it should foinetimes be at tended with some degree of rigor, was a less evil than a lax mode of executing the laws ; that it may be considered as a great grievance to have frequent recourse to qualified interpretations of the laws—with regard to the revenue laws, it mult llrike every person that a certainty in the rule should be maintained in all pollible cases still fines, penalties and forfeitures may be in curred in such a way as may entitle to relief. The objecl of the bill is to grant such relief with the least risque to the revenue, and in such way as that the person may receive it as soon as pof lible. Mr. Sedgwick was in favor of the motion, and pointed out the injustice of requiring a confef fion previous to granting relief, as it would violate the feelings of a person not conscious of guilt—besides fubjeifling him inevitably to the loss of one halt his property. Mr. Burke wished the whole clause fliould be erased, he said it was like making a man confefs murder and then hanging him for his confeflion. Mr. Wadfworth stated a cafe to shew that this law would make the situation of persons design ed to be relieved by it, much worse than it now is—and will eventually destroy the coasting trade. Mr. Lawrance Hated the process by the law as it now stands, by which perlons absolutely vio lating the laws intentionally or through ignor ance, are precluded from all relief—he therefore insisted that it is neceflary that this confeflion of judgment ihould accompany the application for relief, in cases designed to be provided for by the bill—without this confeflion the application ap pears to be absurd—he was therefore opposed to the motion for ftrikingout the words. Mr. Smith was in favor offtriking out the words. Mr. Sturges observed, that he did not conceive the reliefpropofed to be administered, ought to be conlidered in the light of mercy, but ofjultice. The mode of relief pointed out by this bill, let the circumitances be as they will, leaves the fuf fererin a situation that 110 person ought to be lia ble to, who is not guilty of intentional and wil ful violation of the laws—for at any rate he is to lofeone half his property. He thought the cafe, stated by the gentleman from South Carolina, very pertinent to the present. Mr. Fitzfimons said, he hoped if these words are struck out, that the whole* clause would be e rased, and that there would be a more equitable mode pointed out. He adverted to the pra&ice in England, where the application for relief is made to the Commissioners after trial. Mr. White followed Mr. Fitzfimons in (imilar observations. Mr. Ames entered into a full discussion of the principles of the bill—and observed, that he doubted not when the committee had poflefled themselves of a more perfe