After much consideration, the _equality of the States_ was recognized in the Constitution of the Senate, and small States, like Delaware and Rhode Island, were allowed, in this body, equal power with large States, like Virginia and Massachusetts. But this great concession to the small States was coupled at the time with a condition that “money bills” should originate in the House of Representatives, where the people were represented according to numbers. The language finally employed was, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This was adopted, as compensation to the large and populous States for their comparative weakness in the Senate. That I do not go too far, when I call it part of the compromise between the great States and small States, I proceed to show, from the debates in the National Convention, as reported by Mr. Madison, how it was regarded there. The provision owes its authoritative introduction to Dr. Franklin, who moved it in the committee which subsequently reported it.[30] Afterwards, in Convention, when the clause relating to _equality of votes_ was under consideration, we have this report of what he said. “Dr. Franklin observed, that this question could not be properly put by itself, the Committee having reported several propositions as _mutual conditions of each other_. He could not vote for it, if separately taken, but should vote for the whole together.”[31] Colonel Mason, of Virginia, was of the same opinion, and desired “that the whole might be brought _into one view_.”[32] Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, followed up the idea of the mutual dependence of the two propositions, remarking,-- “He would not say that the concession was a sufficient one on the part of the small States; but he could not but regard it in the light of a _concession_. It would make it a constitutional principle, that the second branch were not possessed of the confidence of the people in _money matters_,”-- Please, Sir, to mark the breadth of this expression. --“which would lessen their weight and influence.”[33] Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, followed, saying,-- “He thought it evident that the concession was wholly on one side, that of the large States; the privilege of originating _money bills_ being of no account.”[34] At a later stage of the debates the subject was resumed, and the two propositions still appear together. “Mr. Rutledge [of South Carolina] proposed to reconsider the two propositions touching the originating of _money bills_ in the first, and the _equality of votes_ in the second branch.” “Mr. Sherman [of Connecticut] was for the question on the whole at once. It was, he said, _a conciliatory plan_. It had been considered in all its parts.”