SEC. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Great Britain the popular branch is called "the House of Commons," the other is "the House of Lords." In France the corresponding branches are called "the Chamber of Deputies," and "the Chamber of Peers."

SEC. 2. That part of this Section which fixes the term of service of Representatives, their age, and other qualifications, as well as the qualifications of electors of Representatives, produced no remarkable discussion. Some proposed three years as their term of service; and others thought they should be chosen by the State Legislatures instead of the people. On all these matters, the plans of Messrs. Randolph and Pinckney were in substance adopted, as was that of Mr. Hamilton, except that he would have had the first Representatives and the first Senators chosen by the conventions called in each State to ratify the Constitution. Mr. Patterson's plan, of course, left these matters as already provided for by the Articles of Confederation. Those who thought that the Representatives should be chosen by the State Legislatures, contended that the people, directly, should have as little to do

What are the two branches called in Great Britain? And in France?

How often are members of the House of Representatives chosen? By whom are they chosen?

What is meant by an elector? What are the qualifications of electors?

What is the most numerous branch in the Legislature of this State called?

What age is required for a Representative? What other qualifications must he have?

What other term of service was proposed? And method of choice? Whose plans were substantially followed?

What is said of Messrs. Hamilton and Patterson?

What arguments for Representatives being chosen by State Legislatures?

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual

with the government as possible. They are generally uninformed, it was urged, and therefore liable to be misled. The greatest evils felt by the Statee, or by the nation, it was thought, flowed from an excess of democracy. On the other hand, it was urged that the House of Representatives should be drawn directly from the people. That body ought to sympathize with the people, and be the special organ of the voice of the people. The democratic principle could not be sufficiently preserved in the government, unless the Representatives were drawn, not only from the people, but from the different districts and sections of the whole republic.

The Constitution leaves the qualifications of electors to the several States, which must meet the wishes of all, however different their practices may be. Indeed the qualifications of both electors and Representatives must remain undetermined by any other rules than such as are suggested by the habits, interests, and peculiarities, of different states and nations. It seemed proper only to provide against the admission of aliens and foreigners. A member of the French Chamber of Deputies must be thirty years of age, and pay a direct tax of 500 francs. An elector must pay a direct tax of 200 francs.

But that clause of this Section which apportions the Representatives and direct taxes among the States, occupied much of the time of the Convention. So far as regards representa

What did those who advanced them think of the people?

From what source did they think the greatest evils in the nation flowed ?

What were the arguments for a choice by the people?

Can any general rule be given, suited to all times and nations, for the qualifications of electors and Representatives? What circumstances

will direct these matters in different states and nations?

What qualifications must a member of the French Chamber of Deputies have? And an elector?

How are Representatives and direct taxes apportioned?

Who are meant by "other persons"? Why did they not say slaves?

enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such

tion, they easily agreed, notwithstanding strenuous opposition. from the small States, to depart from the old rule under the Confederation, and resolved that an equitable apportionment should be made. Some proposed the property of the States, and others the revenue derived from them to the government, as the basis of the apportionment. Against both these plans there seemed to be very grave objections. They seemed to provide for the representation of wealth, rather than persons; and seemed not to have a proper regard to, and connection with, the rights and liberties of the whole people. Neither of them could give any adequate idea of the relative extent or population of the States. The richest States might be by no means the most populous; and as the greatest importing States would probably bring in the most revenue, on that basis the States of New Hampshire, New Jersey, many larger States at the South, and even perhaps the great State of Virginia, might be inferior on the floor of Congress to the little State of Rhode Island. On the whole, it soon became evident that population, of some description, must be the basis of representation. Mr. Randolph's plan proposed either the (6 quotas of contribution," or the number of "free inhabitants." Mr Hamilton favored the rule finally adopted. This rule was contended for by Southern members generally, under the idea that slavery was very important to their interests, and that the slaves were an important part of their population.

Many of the members expressed themselves in the most decided manner in opposition to slavery. It was not their wish to take the matter out of the hands of the particular States where slavery existed; but they were extremely anxious that the government about to be established should not show any favor to so iniquitous a system. And they were especially alarmed at what seemed to them an attempt to foster and protect slavery at the expense of the free laborers

What other bases of representation were proposed? What were the objections to them?

What difference between Mr. Randolph's and Mr. Hamilton's plans? Why did Southern members contend for bringing their slaves into the representation?

Did any speak decidedly against slavery?

Did they wish to take the matter out of the hands of the slave-states?
What were they anxious for? What alarmed them?

How often must a census, or enumeration of the people, take place?

manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

of the North. It being determined that property could not be the rule of representation, Mr. Gerry asked, Why then should the blacks, who are property at the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses of the North?" And Mr. King alluded to the same thing as "a most grating circumstance" to his mind. But Mr. Governeur Morris alluded to it in terms of almost unmeasured disapprobation. He called domestic slavery a nefarious institution, and the curse of Heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare," ," said he, "the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the prosperity aud happiness of the people, with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave the Eastern States, and enter New York, the effects of the institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys, and entering Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are

What does the Constitution determine respecting the number of representatives?

What was Mr. Gerry's question with regard to the slaves' coming into the representation? Mr. King's remark?

How did Mr. G. Morris allude to the same matter?

What did he

call domestic slavery? What comparison did he institute? How did he think the territory of the North and South compared?

they men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The houses in this city [Philadelphia] are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this, that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections, and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than a citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. Domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the Southern States, for their defence against those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels and seamen, in case of foreign attack. The Legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises and duties on imports; both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern inhabitants; for the Bohea tea used by a Northern freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence, and the rag that covers his nakedness. On the other side, the Southern States are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack and the difficulty of defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of having their votes in the National Government increased in proportion; and are at the same time to have their exports and their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service." These remarks were made while as yet no provision was made giving Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves, or even discourage it by imposing a duty on them. Indeed, in the draft then before the Convention was a clause expressly restraining Congress from meddling with the matter, either by

What did he say, if slaves are men? And what, if they are property? What, of the houses of Philadelphia? What did he say the admission of slaves into the representation comes to?

Give some farther points of Mr. Morris's remarks. What do you think of his sentiments?

て