There was a time when a majority of the citizens of New-York were so opposed to lawyers as members of the legislature, that a single gentleman of that profession, though confessedly a man of abilities, and in other respects, of unimpeachable character, could not obtain a majority of suffrages, principally owing to the circumstance of his being of that profession.

But the times are changed, and we are changed with them. We now find a list of candidates proposed for convention, SEVEN of whom are either lawyers or law characters, and no less than THREE are named as members of the legislature.1

No prejudice ought to be entertained against the profession of the law, confined to its proper sphre; but there are cogent reasons to be offered against admitting too large a number in the legislature. Every man will be inclined to promote his own trade. The more dubious and obscure the laws are, the more will the business of the profession be increased. It will therefore be for the interest of the lawyers to frame the laws in such a manner as to be equivocal and hard to to be understood.

There are also good reasons against electing many lawyers in the convention.—We are for adopting the constitution; but still we wish that they, who compose the convention, may propose amendments, after the manner of Massachusetts.—In this opinion, so far as we are able to collect it, are a large majority of our fellow citizens. If the new constitution needs amendment, it wants in no part more than in that which relates to the judicial department—the courts of law, as they are to be formed under the constitution, will prove oppressive and expensive, and will introduce very great confusion by their interference with the state judiciaries; and it is wished that the convention may recommend alterations in this and some other articles after its adoption. But the lawyers will be under a strong bias to oppose the necessary amendments to this part of the plan. The increase of lawsuits, and of the expences of carrying them on, though it will be oppressive to the people in general, will be to the advantage of the profession of the law—It will therefore be more for the public good, to chuse a less number of lawyers—give them a full share in the representation, and elect two. There are other gentlemen who are not lawyers—characters firmly attached to the adoption of the system in the form in which it has been adopted by Massachusetts.

MANY FEDERALISTS2

JOHN JAY,	GULIAN VERPLANCK,
ALEXANDER HAMILTON,	DANIEL PHOENIX,
ISAAC ROSEVELT,	WILLIAM NEILSON,
ALEXANDER McCOMB,	WILLIAM MAXWELL.
R.C. LIVINGSTON,