violently opposed. The small States insisted
strenuously on retaining an equal vote in the Legislature, but at length
consented to a proportional representation in the House on condition
that they should have an equal vote in the Senate.

Accordingly, on June 29th, Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, offered a
motion, "that in the second branch, each State shall have an equal
vote." This motion gave rise to a protracted and vehement debate. It was
supported by Messrs. Ellsworth; Baldwin, of Georgia; Bradford, of
Delaware, and others. It was urged on the ground of the necessity of a
compromise between the friends of the confederation and those of a
national government, and as a measure which would secure tranquillity
and meet the objections of the larger States. Equal representation in
one branch would make the government partly federal, and a proportional
representation in the other would make it partly national. Equality in
the second branch would enable the small States to protect themselves
against the combined power of the large States. Fears were expressed
that without this advantage to the small States, it would be in the
power of a few large States to control the rest. The small States, it
was said, must possess this power of self-defence, or be ruined.

The motion was opposed by Messrs. Madison, Wilson, of Pennsylvania;
King, of Massachusetts, and Dr. Franklin. Mr. Madison thought there was
no danger from the quarter from which it was apprehended. The great
source of danger to the General Government was the opposing interests of
the North and the South, as would appear from the votes of Congress,
which had been divided by geographical lines, not according to the size
of the States. James Wilson objected to State equality; that it would
enable one-fourth of the Union to control three-fourths. Respecting the
danger of the three larger States combining together to give rise to a
monarchy or an aristocracy, he thought it more probable that a rivalship
would exist between them than that they would unite in a confederacy.
Rufus King said the rights of Scotland were secure from all danger,
though in the Parliament she had a small representation. Dr. Franklin,
now in his eighty-second year, said, as it was not easy to see what the
greater States could gain by swallowing up the smaller, he did not
apprehend they would attempt it. In voting by States--the mode then
existing--it was equally in the power of the smaller States