all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by
ages, as the report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion
in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be
filled up, the clause was recommitted. _p_. 421-2.

FRIDAY, March 28, 1783.

The committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one
freeman.

Mr. WOLCOTT (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.
CARROLL as four to one. Mr. WILLIAMSON (of North Carolina) said he
was principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an
incumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay
taxes. Mr. HIGGINSON (of Massachusetts) as four to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE
(of South Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree
to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one
would be a juster proportion. Mr. HOLTON as four to three.--Mr. OSGOOD
said he did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them
as three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts,
no; Rhode Island; divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye;
Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North
Carolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then postponed, by
general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it;
but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be
agreed to.

After some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity
of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into
view, Mr. MADISON (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of
the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that
slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE (of South
Carolina) seconded the motion. Mr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) said he
would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.

Mr. LEE was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that
two slaves were not equal to one freeman.

On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New
Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut,
no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye;
North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye.

A motion was then made by Mr. BLAND, seconded by Mr. LEE, to strike
out the clause so amended, and, on the question "Shall it stand," it
passed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode
Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey,