It was agreed, on 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 he 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 proposed, 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, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.