Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/290

258 Dangers of disruption. Rule of suffrage. [i787 Connecticut ; so in New Jersey. If disruption took place, the fate of New Jersey would be worst of all ; she had no foreign commerce, and could have none ; she would be ruined between New York and Pennsyl- vania. In view of such perils, he must stay there as long as any one would meet him, to find some plan to submit to the people. Others too spoke of the danger ; Read, for Delaware, scouted it ; the larger States, he said, wanted a general government because they felt their own weakness. Madison entreated the small States to renounce a principle which was unjust, and never could be admitted in a constitution which they wished to last for ever. He urged them to ponder the danger of disruption. It had been said that want of energy in the large States would be security for the small ones; but that want of energy would proceed from the supposed security of the States against external danger. Let each depend upon itself for security, and let danger arise from distant powers or neighbouring States, and the languishing condition of all the States, large and small, would be changed into vigour. His fear was that they would then show too much energy, that they would be dangerous not merely to each other, but to the liberty of all. And danger from disruption would follow, whether an entire separation be- tween the States took place or partial confederations were formed. Hamilton said that as States were a collection of individuals, nothing could be more preposterous than to sacrifice the latter to the artificial beings which they created. It had been said that if the smaller States gave up their equality, they gave up their liberty ; the truth was, it was a contest for power, not for liberty. Would the people of the smaller States be less free than those of the larger? Delaware, with forty thousand inhabitants, would indeed lose power if she had but a tenth of the votes allowed to Pennsylvania, with four hundred thousand; but would the people of Delaware be less free if each citizen had an equal vote with each citizen of Pennsylvania? He spoke earnestly of the dangers of dissolution. This was the critical moment ; it was a miracle that they were there ; it would be madness to trust to future miracles. The debate came to an end on the same day, and the States voted, six against four, "that the rule of suffrage in the first branch ought not to be according to that established by the Articles of Confederation." The four votes against changing the rule of equality were given by Con- necticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware; the large States were supported by North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Maryland was divided. The question had been before the Convention for three days; it was now June 29. The result was put into the hands of the committee of detail, without further change, and by that committee into the draft Constitution of August 6. There it was accordingly provided that the members of the House of Representatives should be chosen by the people of the