Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/296

 .264 Further debate on equality. [1737 ^Delaware had not the weight of Pennsylvania. He repeated, that the real difference between the States was not between large and small, but between northern and southern, States. Slavery was the dividing line ; there were five States south, and eight States north of it. Under propor- tional representation the northern States would outnumber the southern ; but every day would tend towards equalising them. Wilson would agree to equality if the error were one that time would correct, but it was not ; the error was mortal. He had considered the argument that equality was necessary to the preservation of the smaller States ; but he believed it unsound. Was there any reason to suppose that if their preservation should depend mainly on the large States, the safety of the States against the general government would be lessened? Were the large States less attached to their existence than the small ones ? Pinckney^s motion was voted on shortly afterwards, and lost; four States voting for it and six against. Virginia and Pennsylvania were with the ayes, Massachusetts with the nays. On the next day the whole report of the special committee, amended in several respects, was adopted, with the provision for equal voting in the Senate; the vote standing five ayes to four nays. Pennsylvania and Virginia were among the nays; Massachusetts was divided. New York, which doubtless would have supported the affirmative, was not represented; Yates and Lansing had left the Convention on the ground that it was exceeding its powers ; Hamilton was absent, and would hardly have cast the vote of New York had he been present. The delegates from the larger States were still unwilling to accept the decision of the House; but in the actual state of things there was no use of further discussion. Randolph accordingly suggested adjournment for the day, that the larger States might decide what to do in the solemn crisis, and that the smaller might deliberate on means of conciliation. The suggestion prevailed; but adjournment failed to help matters. A meeting of members from the larger States, with several from the smaller, took place on the next morning, before the Convention came together, and informally considered the situation, but without arriving at any agreement. Those who opposed equality were divided among themselves in regard to the course to be pursued, with the result that the delegates from the smaller States were encouraged to hold to the point they had gained; which they did. The decision in favour of equality therefore stood. A week later, individual voting among senators was agreed upon. The result was given accordingly to the committee of detail, and by that committee put into the draft Constitution of August 6. Thence the provision was without further difficulty inserted in the Constitution itself, as the first part of section 3, Article I. Closely connected with the question of proportional representation