[73] Mr. Hallam does not concur in what he says has been a prevailing opinion, that Parliament was not divided into two houses at the first admission of the commons. That they did not sit in separate chambers proves nothing; for one body may have sat at the end of Westminster Hall, and the other at the opposite end. But he thinks that they were never intermingled in voting; and, in proof of this, he adduces the fact that their early grants to the King were separate, and imply distinct grantors, who did not intermeddle with each others' proceedings. He further shows, that in the 11th Edward I. the commons sat in one place and the lords in another; and that in the 8th Edward II. the commons presented a separate petition or complaint to the King, and the same thing occurred in 1 Edward III. He infers from the rolls of Parliament, that the houses were divided as they are at present in the 8th, 9th and 19th Edward II. (See the very valuable Chapter VIII., on the English Constitution, in Hallam's Middle Ages, III. 342.) [74] See on this subject Lieber on Civil Liberty, I. 209, edit. 1853. [75] Connecticut upon this question voted with the majority. [76] Madison, Elliot, V. 240. [77] June 28. [78] Madison, Elliot, V. 256. [79] Madison, Elliot, V. 258. [80] It was made at this stage by Dr. Johnson. [81] The States opposed to an equality of suffrage in the first branch were Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, 6; those in favor of it were Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. The vote of Maryland was divided. [82] Mr. Baldwin of Georgia suggested this model. [83] David Brearly. [84] New York and New Jersey. [85] The question was put upon Ellsworth's motion to allow the States an equal representation in the Senate. The vote stood, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, _ay_. 5; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, _no_, 5; Georgia divided. The person who divided the vote of Georgia, and thus prevented a decision which must have resulted in a disruption of the Convention, was Abraham Baldwin. We have no account of the motives with which he cast this vote, except an obscure suggestion by Luther Martin, which is not intelligible. (Elliot, I. 356.) Baldwin was a very wise and a very able man. He was not in favor of Ellsworth's proposition, but he probably saw the consequences of forcing the minority States to the alternatives of receiving what they regarded as an unjust and unsafe system, or of quitting the Union. By dividing the vote of his State he prevented this issue, although he also made it probable that the Convention must be dissolved without the adoption of any plan whatever. CHAPTER VII. FIRST GRAND COMPROMISES OF THE CONSTITUTION.--POPULATION OF THE STATES ADOPTED AS THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE.--RULE FOR COMPUTING THE SLAVES.--EQUALITY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE STATES ADOPTED FOR THE SENATE.