[51] The regulation of commerce was not, any more than other specific powers, otherwise provided for than by these general descriptions. [52] This, together with the Virginia plan, which was recommitted along with it, was referred to a second committee of the whole, June 15th. [53] William Patterson of New Jersey. [54] See the remarks of Wilson, Pinckney, and Randolph, as given in Madison, Elliot, V. 195-198. [55] See his letter of September 16, 1803, addressed to Timothy Pickering; first published in Niles's Register, November 7, 1812. [56] See the note at the end of this chapter. [57] See the note at the end of this chapter. [58] Mr. Brearly and Mr. Patterson. [59] Louis XVI. [60] Necker. [61] Mr. Patterson had said, that, if they were to depart from the principle of equal sovereignty, the only expedient that would cure the difficulty would be to throw the States into hotchpot. To say that this was impracticable, would not make it so. Let it be tried, and they would see whether Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would accede to it. (Madison, Elliot, V. 194.) [62] Elliot, V. 206-211. [63] Madison, Elliot, V. 212. Journal, Elliot, I. 180. This vote was taken, and the committee of the whole were discharged, on the 19th of June. CHAPTER VI. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE NATIONAL AND FEDERAL SYSTEMS.--DIVISION OF THE LEGISLATURE INTO TWO CHAMBERS.--DISAGREEMENT OF THE STATES ON THE NATURE OF REPRESENTATION IN THE TWO BRANCHES.--THREATENED DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. We are now approaching a crisis in the action of the Convention, the history of which is full of instruction for all succeeding generations of the American people. We have witnessed the formation of a minority of the States, whose bond of connection was a common opposition to the establishment of what was regarded as a "national" government. The structure of this minority, as well as that of the majority to which they were opposed, the motives and purposes by which both were animated, and the results to which their conflicts finally led, are extremely important to be understood by the reader. The relative rank of the different States in point of population, at the time of the formation of the Constitution, was materially different from what it is at the present day. Virginia, then the first State in the Union, is now the fourth. New York, now at the head of the scale, then ranked after North Carolina and Massachusetts, which occupied the third and fourth positions in the first census, and which now occupy respectively the sixth and tenth. South Carolina, which then had a smaller population than Maryland, now has a much greater. Georgia at that time had not half so many inhabitants as New Jersey, but now has twice as many.