It was already hot and humid when the delegates arrived at the State House this morning, refreshed after the Fourth of July holiday and prepared to receive the Report of the Grand Committee. Committee chairman Elbridge Gerry delivered the Report to the Secretary’s table and proceeded to read it throughout, then paragraph by paragraph. It soon became evident the committee is as divided as ever.
Nathaniel Gorham demanded to know why the Committee proposed the Report be taken as a whole, not subjecting its provisions to being considered separately. Gerry’s response reflected division in the Committee but also its attempts to find common ground. “Those opposed to the equality of votes have only assented conditionally,” he said, “and if the other side do not generally agree will not be under any obligation to support the Report.”
James Wilson complained the Committee has exceeded its powers, an interesting observation from one who has consistently supported an expansive role of the Convention against delegates from small States who have often criticized the Convention for exceeding its instructions. Wilson did not elaborate.
Having voted against establishing the Committee, James Madison now opposed specific elements of the Report. The “privilege of originating money bills” in the first branch of the legislature is no “concession on the side of the small States,” he argued. “If seven States in the upper branch wished a bill to be originated, they might surely find some member from some of the same States in the lower branch who would originate it.” Because it is not a true concession, it leaves “in force all the objections which had prevailed against allowing each State an equal voice.”
Next, Madison took a verbal swipe against the notion that “Delaware would brave the consequences of seeking her fortunes apart from the other States, rather than submit to such a government [of unequal States]. Much less could he suspect that she would pursue the rash policy of courting foreign support, which the warmth of one of her representatives [Gunning Bedford] had suggested.” In similar fashion, Madison criticized the delegate from New Jersey who asserted his State “would rather stand on their own legs and bid defiance to events than to acquiesce under an establishment founded on principles the justice of which they could not dispute.”
Before Bedford had the opportunity to respond to Madison, Pierce Butler interposed, proposing that “the second branch ought to represent the States according to their property.” Later in the debate, Gouverneur Morris would agree with Bedford and expound on the importance of property in the larger scheme of protecting life and liberty. But at this moment, he rose to denounce both “the form as well as the matter of the Report as objectionable.” He disapproved of having to accept or reject all of it but did not comment on its provisions. Instead, he made a passionate appeal to unity. “He came here,” he said, “as a representative of America” and “in some degree as a representative of the whole human race; for the whole human race will be affected by the proceedings of this Convention.” “The country must be united,” he implored. “If persuasion does not unite it, the sword will.”
Then, Bedford defended himself. He realized “that what he had said as to the small States being taken by the hand, had been misunderstood.” He did not mean the small States would court the aid of foreign powers, only “that they would not consider the federal compact as dissolved until it should be so by the acts of the large States.” If that were to occur, “the foreign nations having demands on the country would find it their interest to take the small States by the hand, in order to do themselves justice. That was what I meant.”
It was a weak explanation, but his apology helped to cool matters, suggesting that “some allowance ought to be made for the habits of his profession [lawyer] in which warmth is natural and sometimes necessary.” However, he expected some apologies in return. “Is there not an apology in what was said by Mr. Morris that the sword is to unite; and by Mr. Gorham that Delaware must be annexed to Pennsylvania?” He cited others. Still refusing to relinquish support for equality in the second branch, Bedford did concede that “something should be immediately done.” It would be “better that a defective plan should be adopted, than that none should be recommended.” There is no reason, he concluded, “why defects might not be supplied by meetings 10, 15, or 20 years hence.”
The wrangling continued. Williamson hoped “the expressions of individuals would not be taken for the sense of their colleagues, much less of their States.” Of the Report, he said “it is the most objectionable than any he had yet heard.” Paterson moaned “of the manner in which Mr. Madison and Mr. Govr. Morris treated the small States.” George Mason, a member of the Committee, defended the Report, “not meant as specific propositions to be adopted, but merely as a general ground of accommodation.” Morris spoke again, this time raising the issue of new States joining the union, insisting the existing States have “a prevalence in the national councils.” Mason countered. There should be no “unfavorable discrimination against new States.”
Strangely, Gerry said little during the debate. He admitted he had “very material objections” to the Report but warned of consequences if compromise cannot be found. Of Gerry, William Pierce has written, “His character is marked for integrity and perseverance…He goes extensively into all subjects that he speaks on, without respect to elegance or flower of diction…He cherishes as his first virtue, a love for his country. He is very much a gentleman in his principles and manners.” Today, he was uncharacteristically silent.