had made the objection which the smaller states now do. But
experience had proved that no unfairness had ever been shown them.

That their advocates had prognosticated that it would again happen as
in times of old, that the whale would swallow Jonas, but he thought

the prediction reversed in event and that Jonas had swallowed the
whale, for the Scotch had in fact got possession of the government

and gave laws to the English. He reprobated the original agreement
of Congress to vote by colonies and therefore was for their voting in

all cases according to the number of taxables.
Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. All

men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get
abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the

minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, & lessen
it's importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of

war & dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused, the
smaller states will become vassals to the larger; & all experience

has shown that the vassals & subjects of free states are the most
enslaved. He instanced the Helots of Sparta & the provinces of Rome.

He observed that foreign powers discovering this blemish would make
it a handle for disengaging the smaller states from so unequal a

confederacy. That the colonies should in fact be considered as
individuals; and that as such, in all disputes they should have an

equal vote; that they are now collected as individuals making a
bargain with each other, & of course had a right to vote as

individuals. That in the East India company they voted by persons, &
not by their proportion of stock. That the Belgic confederacy voted

by provinces. That in questions of war the smaller states were as
much interested as the larger, & therefore should vote equally; and

indeed that the larger states were more likely to bring war on the
confederacy in proportion as their frontier was more extensive. He

admitted that equality of representation was an excellent principle,
but then it must be of things which are coordinate; that is, of

things similar & of the same nature: that nothing relating to
individuals could ever come before Congress; nothing but what would

respect colonies. He distinguished between an incorporating & a
federal union. The union of England was an incorporating one; yet

Scotland had suffered by that union: for that it's inhabitants were
drawn from it by the hopes of places & employments. Nor was it an

instance of equality of representation; because while Scotland was
allowed nearly a thirteenth of representation they were to pay only

one fortieth of the land tax. He expressed his hopes that in the
present enlightened state of men's minds we might expect a lasting

confederacy, if it was founded on fair principles.
John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He

said that we stand here as the representatives of the people. That
in some states the people are many, in others they are few; that

therefore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from
whom it comes. Reason, justice, & equity never had weight enough on

the face of the earth to govern the councils of men. It is interest
alone which does it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted.

That therefore the interests within doors should be the mathematical
representatives of the interests without doors. That the

individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. Does the
individuality of a colony increase it's wealth or numbers. If it

does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the scale of the
confederacy, it cannot add to their rights, nor weigh in argument.

A. has pound 50. B. pound 500. C. pound 1000. in partnership. Is it
just they should equallydispose of the monies of the partnership?

It has been said we are independent individuals making a bargain
together. The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to

be when our bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one
individual only; it is to form us, like separate parcels of metal,

into one common mass. We shall no longer retain our separate
individuality, but become a single individual as to all questions

submitted to the confederacy. Therefore all those reasons which
prove the justice & expediency of equal representation in other

assemblies, hold good here. It has been objected that a proportional
vote will endanger the smaller states. We answer that an equal vote

will endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsylvania, & Massachusetts
are the three greater colonies. Consider their distance, their

difference of produce, of interests & of manners, & it is apparent
they can never have an interest or inclination to combine for the

oppression of the smaller. That the smaller will naturally divide on
all questions with the larger. Rhode isld, from it's relation,

similarity & intercourse will generally pursue the same objects with
Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware & Maryland, with Pennsylvania.

Dr. [Benjamin] Rush took notice that the decay of the liberties
of the Dutch republic proceeded from three causes. 1. The perfect

unanimity requisite on all occasions. 2. Their obligation to consult
their constituents. 3. Their voting by provinces. This last

destroyed the equality of representation, and the liberties of great
Britain also are sinking from the same defect. That a part of our

rights is deposited in the hands of our legislatures. There it was
admitted there should be an equality of representation. Another part

of our rights is deposited in the hands of Congress: why is it not
equally necessary there should be an equal representation there?

Were it possible to collect the whole body of the people together,
they would determine the questions submitted to them by their

majority. Why should not the same majority decide when voting here
by their representatives? The larger colonies are so providentially

divided in situation as to render every fear of their combining
visionary. Their interests are different, & their circumstances

dissimilar. It is more probable they will become rivals & leave it
in the power of the smaller states to give preponderance to any scale

they please. The voting by the number of free inhabitants will have
one excellent effect, that of inducing the colonies to discourage

slavery & to encourage the increase of their free inhabitants.
Mr. [Stephen] Hopkins observed there were 4 larger, 4 smaller,

& 4 middle-sized colonies. That the 4 largest would contain more
than half the inhabitants of the confederated states, & therefore

would govern the others as they should please. That history affords
no instance of such a thing as equal representation. The Germanic

body votes by states. The Helvetic body does the same; & so does the
Belgic confederacy. That too little is known of the ancient

confederations to say what was their practice.
Mr. Wilson thought that taxation should be in proportion to

wealth, but that representation should accord with the number of
freemen. That government is a collection or result of the wills of

all. That if any government could speak the will of all, it would be
perfect; and that so far as it departs from this it becomes

imperfect. It has been said that Congress is a representation of
states; not of individuals. I say that the objects of its care are

all the individuals of the states. It is strange that annexing the
name of "State" to ten thousand men, should give them an equal right

with forty thousand. This must be the effect of magic, not of
reason. As to those matters which are referred to Congress, we are

not so many states, we are one large state. We lay aside our
individuality, whenever we come here. The Germanic body is a

burlesque on government; and their practice on any point is a
sufficient authority & proof that it is wrong. The greatest

imperfection in the constitution of the Belgic confederacy is their
voting by provinces. The interest of the whole is constantly

sacrificed to that of the small states. The history of the war in
the reign of Q. Anne sufficiently proves this. It is asked shall

nine colonies put it into the power of four to govern them as they
please? I invert the question, and ask shall two millions of people

put it in the power of one million to govern them as they please? It
is pretended too that the smaller colonies will be in danger from the

greater. Speak in honest language & say the minority will be in
danger from the majority. And is there an assembly on earth where

this danger may not be equally pretended? The truth is that our
proceedings will then be consentaneous with the interests of the

majority, and so they ought to be. The probability is much greater