"An inequality of circumstances," he observed, "produces revolutions in governments, from democracy, to aristocracy, and monarchy. Great wealth produces a desire of distinctions, rank, and titles. The revolutions of property, in this country, have created a prodigious inequality of circumstances. Government has contributed to this inequality. The bank of the United States is a most important machine in promoting the objects of this monied interest. This bank will be the most powerful engine to corrupt this house. Some of the members are directors of this institution; and it will only be by increasing the representation, that an adequate barrier can be opposed to this monied interest." He next adverted to certain ideas, which, he said, had been disseminated through the United States. "The legislature," he took occasion to observe, "ought to express some disapprobation of these opinions. The strong executive of this government," he added, "ought to be balanced by a full representation in this house." Similar sentiments were advanced by Mr. Findley. After a long and animated discussion, the amendment was lost, and the bill passed in its original form. In the senate, it was amended by changing the ratio, so as to give one representative for every thirty-three thousand persons in each state; but this amendment was disagreed to by the house of representatives; and each house adhering to its opinion, the bill fell; but was again introduced into the house of representatives, under a different title, and in a new form, though without any change in its substantial provisions. After a debate in which the injustice of the fractions produced by the ratio it adopted was strongly pressed, it passed that house. In the senate, it was again amended, not by reducing, but by enlarging the number of representatives.