Читать книгу The History of Black People in America from 1619 to 1880 - George Washington Williams - Страница 20

Table of Contents

1633–1775.

The Era of Prohibitory Legislation against Slavery.—Boston instructs her Representatives to vote against the Slave-Trade.—Proclamation issued by Gov. Dummer against the Negroes, April 13, 1723.—Persecution of the Negroes.—"Suing for Liberty."—Letter of Samuel Adams to John Pickering, jun., on Behalf of Negro Memorialists.—A Bill for the Suppression of the Slave-Trade passes.—Is vetoed by Gov. Gage, and fails to become a Law.

The time to urge legislation on the slavery question had come. Cultivated at the first as a private enterprise, then fostered as a patriarchal institution, slavery had grown to such gigantic proportions as to be regarded as an unwieldy evil, and subversive of the political stability of the colony. Men winked at the "day of its small things," and it grew. Little legislation was required to regulate it, and it began to take root in the social and political life of the people. The necessities for legislation in favor of slavery increased. Every year witnessed the enactment of laws more severe, until they appeared as scars upon the body of the laws of the colony. To erase these scars was the duty of the hour.

It was now 1755. More than a half-century of agitation and discussion had prepared the people for definite action. Manumission and petition were the first methods against slavery. On the 10th of March, 1755, the town of Salem instructed their representative, Timothy Pickering, to petition the General Court against the importation of slaves.380 The town of Worcester, in June, 1765, instructed their representative to "use his influence to obtain a law to put an end to that unchristian and impolitic practice of making slaves of the human species, and that he give his vote for none to serve in His Majesty's Council, who will use their influence against such a law."381 The people of Boston, in the month of May, 1766, instructed their representatives as follows:—

"And for the total abolishing of slavery among us, that you move for a law to prohibit the importation and the purchasing of slaves for the future."382

And in the following year, 1767, on the 16th of March, the question was put as to whether the town should adhere to its previous instructions in favor of the suppression of the slave-trade, and passed in the affirmative. Nearly all the towns, especially those along the coast, those accessible by mails and newspapers, had recorded their vote, in some shape or other, against slavery. The pressure for legislation on the subject was great. The country members of the Legislature were almost a unit in favor of the passage of a bill prohibiting the further importation of slaves. The opposition came from the larger towns, but the opposers were awed by the determined bearing of the enemies of the slave-trade. The scholarship, wealth, and piety of the colony were steadily ranging to the side of humanity.

On the 13th of March, 1767, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives "to prevent the unwarrantable and unlawful Practice or Custom of inslaving Mankind in this Province, and the importation of slaves into the same."383 It was read the first time, when a dilatory motion was offered that the bill lie over to the next session, which was decided in the negative. An amendment was offered to the bill, limiting it "to a certain time," which was carried; and the bill made a special order for a second reading on the following day. It was accordingly read on the 14th, when a motion was made to defer it for a third reading to the next "May session." The friends of the bill voted down this dilatory motion, and had the bill made the special order of the following Monday—it now being Saturday. On Sunday there must have been considerable lobbying done, as can be seen by the vote taken on Monday. After it was read, and the debate was concluded, it was "Ordered that the Matter subside, and that Capt. Sheaffe, Col. Richmond, and Col. Bourne, be a Committee to bring in a Bill for laying a Duty of Impost on slaves importing into this Province."384 This was a compromise, that, as will be seen subsequently, impaired the chances of positive and wholesome legislation against slavery. The original bill dealt a double blow: it struck at the slave-trade in the Province, and levelled the institution already in existence. But some secret influences were set in operation, that are forever hidden from the searching eye of history; and the friends of liberty were bullied or cheated. There was no need of a bill imposing an impost tax on slaves imported, for such a law had been in existence for more than a half-century. If the tax were not heavy enough, it could have been increased by an amendment of a dozen lines. On the 17th the substitute was brought in by the special committee appointed by the Speaker the previous day. The rules requiring bills to be read on three several days were suspended, the bill ordered to a first and second reading, and then made the special order for eleven o'clock on the next day, Wednesday, the 18th. The motion to lie on the table until the "next May" was defeated. An amendment was then offered to limit the life of the bill to one year, which was carried, and the bill recommitted. On the afternoon of the same day it was read a third time, and placed on its passage with the amendment. It passed, was ordered engrossed, and was "sent up by Col. Bowers, Col. Gerrish, Col. Leonard, Capt. Thayer, and Col. Richmond." On the 19th of March it was read a first time in the council. On the 20th it was read a second time, and passed to be engrossed "as taken into a new draft." When it reached the House for concurrence, in the afternoon of the same day, it was "Read and unanimously non-concurred, and the House adhere to their own vote, sent up for concurrence."385

Massachusetts has gloried much and long in this Act to prohibit "the Custom of enslaving mankind;" but her silver-tongued orators and profound statesmen have never possessed the courage to tell the plain truth about its complete failure. From the first it was harassed by dilatory motions and amendments directed to its life; and the substitute, imposing an impost tax on imported slaves for one year, showed plainly that the friends of the original bill had been driven from their high ground. It was like applying for the position of a major-general, and then accepting the place of a corporal. It was as though they had asked for a fish, and accepted a serpent instead. It seriously lamed the cause of emancipation. It filled the slaves with gloom, and their friends with apprehension. On the other hand, those who profited by barter in flesh and blood laughed secretly to themselves at the abortive attempt of the anti-slavery friends to call a halt on the trade. They took courage. For ten weary years the voices lifted for the freedom of the slave were few, faint, and far between. The bill itself has been lost. What its subject-matter was, is left to uncertain and unsatisfactory conjecture. All we know is from the title just quoted. But it was, nevertheless, the only direct measure offered in the Provincial Legislature against slavery during the entire colonial period, and came nearest to passage of any. But "a miss is as good as a mile!"

It was now the spring season of 1771. Ten years had flown, and no one in all the Province of Massachusetts had had the courage to attempt legislation friendly to the slave. The scenes of the preceding year were fresh in the minds of the inhabitants of Boston. The blood of the martyrs to liberty was crying from the ground. The "red coats" of the British exasperated the people. The mailed hand, the remorseless steel finger, of English military power was at the throat of the rights of the people. The colony was gasping for independent political life. A terrible struggle for liberty was imminent. The colonists were about to contend for all that men hold dear—their wives, their children, their homes, and their country. But while they were panting for an untrammelled existence, to plant a free nation on the shores of North America, they were robbing Africa every year of her sable children, and condemning them to a bondage more cruel than political subjugation. This glaring inconsistency imparted to reflecting persons a new impulse toward anti-slavery legislation.

In the spring of 1771 the subject of suppressing the slave-trade was again introduced into the Legislature. On the 12th of April a bill "To prevent the Importation of slaves from Africa" was introduced, and read the first time, and, upon the question "When shall the bill be read again?" was ordered to a second reading on the day following at ten o'clock. Accordingly, on the 13th, the bill was read a second time, and postponed till the following Tuesday morning. On the 16th it was recommitted. On the 19th of the same month a "Bill to prevent the Importation of Negro slaves into this Province" was read a first time, and ordered to a second reading "to-morrow at eleven o'clock." On the following day it was read a second time, and made the special order for three o'clock on the following Monday. On the 22d, Monday, it was read a third time, and placed upon its passage and engrossed. On the 24th it passed the House. When it reached the Council James Otis proposed an amendment, and a motion prevailed that the bill lie upon the table. But it was taken from the table, and the amendment of Otis was concurred in by the House. It passed the Council in the latter part of April, but failed to receive the signature of the governor, on the ground that he was "not authorized by Parliament."386 The same reason for refusing his signature was set up by Gen. Gage. Thus the bill failed. Gov. Hutchinson gave his reasons to Lord Hillsborough, secretary of state for the colonies. The governor thought himself restrained by "instructions" to colonial governors "from assenting to any laws of a new and unusual nature." In addition to the foregoing, his Excellency doubted the lawfulness of the legislation to which the "scruple upon the minds of the people in many parts of the province" would lead them; and that he had suggested the propriety of transmitting the bill to England to learn "his Majesty's pleasure" thereabouts. Upon these reasons Dr. Moore comments as follows:—

"These are interesting and important suggestions. It is apparent that at this time there was no special instruction to the royal governor of Massachusetts, forbidding his approval of acts against the slave-trade. Hutchinson evidently doubted the genuineness of the 'chief motive' which was alleged to be the inspiration of the bill, the 'meerly moral' scruple against slavery; but his reasonings furnish a striking illustration of the changes which were going on in public opinion, and the gradual softening of the harsher features of slavery under their influence. The non-importation agreement throughout the Colonies, by which America was trying to thwart the commercial selfishness of her rapacious Mother, had rendered the provincial viceroys peculiarly sensitive to the slightest manifestation of a disposition to approach the sacred precincts of those prerogatives by which King and Parliament assumed to bind their distant dependencies: and the 'spirit of non-importation' which Massachusetts had imperfectly learned from New York was equally offensive to them, whether it interfered with their cherished 'trade with Africa,' or their favorite monopolies elsewhere."

Discouraged by the failure of the House and General Court to pass measures hostile to the slave-trade, the people in the outlying towns began to instruct their representatives, in unmistakable language, to urge the enactment of repressive legislation on this subject. At a town meeting in Salem on the 18th of May, 1773,387 the representatives were instructed to prevent, by appropriate legislation, the further importation of slaves into the colony, as "repugnant to the natural rights of mankind, and highly prejudicial to the Province." On the very next day, May 19, 1773, at a similar meeting in the town of Leicester, the people gave among other instructions to Thomas Denny, their representative, the following on the question of slavery:—

"And, as we have the highest regard for (so as even to revere the name of) liberty, we cannot behold but with the greatest abhorrence any of our fellow-creatures in a state of slavery.

"Therefore we strictly enjoin you to use your utmost influence that a stop maybe put to the slave-trade by the inhabitants of this Province; which, we apprehend, may be effected by one of these two ways: either by laying a heavy duty on every negro imported or brought from Africa or elsewhere into this Province; or by making a law, that every negro brought or imported as aforesaid should be a free man or woman as soon as they come within the jurisdiction of it; and that every negro child that shall be born in said government after the enacting such law should be free at the same age that the children of white people are; and, from the time of their birth till they are capable of earning their living, to be maintained by the town in which they are born, or at the expense of the Province, as shall appear most reasonable.

"Thus, by enacting such a law, in process of time will the blacks become free; or, if the Honorable House of Representatives shall think of a more eligible method, we shall be heartily glad of it. But whether you can justly take away or free a negro from his master, who fairly purchased him, and (although illegally; for such is the purchase of any person against their consent unless it be for a capital offence) which the custom of this country has justified him in, we shall not determine; but hope that unerring Wisdom will direct you in this and all your other important undertakings."388

Medford instructed the representative to "use his utmost influence to have a final period put to that most cruel, inhuman and unchristian practice, the slave-trade." At a town meeting the people of Sandwich voted, on the 18th of May, 1773, "that our representative is instructed to endeavor to have an Act passed by the Court, to prevent the importation of slaves into this country, and that all children that shall be born of such Africans as are now slaves among us, shall, after such Act, be free at 21 yrs. of age."389

This completes the list of towns that gave instructions to their representatives, as far as the record goes. But there doubtless were others; as the towns were close together, and as the "spirit of liberty was rife in the land."

The Negroes did not endure the yoke without complaint. Having waited long and patiently for the dawn of freedom in the colony in vain, a spirit of unrest seized them. They grew sullen and desperate. The local government started, like a sick man, at every imaginary sound, and charged all disorders to the Negroes. If a fire broke out, the "Negroes did it,"—in fact, the Negroes, who were not one-sixth of the population, were continually committing depreciations against the whites! On the 13th of April, 1723, Lieut.-Gov. Dummer issued a proclamation against the Negroes, which contained the following preamble:—

"Whereas, within some short time past, many fires have broke out within the town of Boston, and divers buildings have thereby been consumed: which fires have been designedly and industriously kindled by some villanous and desperate negroes, or other dissolute people, as appears by the confession of some of them (who have been examined by the authority), and many concurring circumstances; and it being vehemently suspected that they have entered into a combination to burn and destroy the town, I have therefore thought fit, with the advice of his Majesty's council, to issue forth this proclamation," etc.

On Sunday, the 18th of April, 1723, the Rev. Joseph Sewall preached a sermon suggested "by the late fires yt have broke out in Boston, supposed to be purposely set by ye negroes." The town was greatly exercised. Everybody regarded the Negroes with distrust. Special measures were demanded to insure the safety of the town. The selectmen of Boston passed "nineteen articles" for the regulation of the Negroes. The watch of the town was increased, and the military called out at the sound of every fire-alarm "to keep the slaves from breaking out"! In August, 1730, a Negro was charged with burning a house in Malden; which threw the entire community into a panic. In 1755 two Negro slaves were put to death for poisoning their master, John Codman of Charlestown. One was hanged, and the other burned to death. In 1766 all slaves who showed any disposition to be free were "transported and exchanged for small negroes."390 In 1768 Capt. John Willson, of the Fifty-ninth Regiment, was accused of exciting the slaves against their masters; assuring them that the soldiers had come to procure their freedom, and that, "with their assistance, they should be able to drive the Liberty Boys to the Devil." The following letter from Mrs. John Adams to her husband, dated at the Boston Garrison, 22d September, 1774, gives a fair idea of the condition of the public pulse, and her pronounced views against slavery.

"There has been in town a conspiracy of the negroes. At present it is kept pretty private, and was discovered by one who endeavored to dissuade them from it. He being threatened with his life, applied to Justice Quincy for protection. They conducted in this way, got an Irishman to draw up a petition to the Governor [Gage], telling him they would fight for him provided he would arm them, and engage to liberate them if he conquered. And it is said that he attended so much to it, as to consult Percy upon it, and one Lieutenant Small has been very busy and active. There is but little said, and what steps they will take in consequence of it I know not. I wish most sincerely there was not a slave in the province; it always appeared a most iniquitous scheme to me to fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have. You know my mind upon this subject."391

The Negroes of Massachusetts were not mere passive observers of the benevolent conduct of their white friends. They were actively interested in the agitation going on in their behalf. Here, as in no other colony, the Negroes showed themselves equal to the emergencies that arose, and capable of appreciating the opportunities to strike for their own rights. The Negroes in the colony at length struck a blow for their liberty. And it was not the wild, indiscriminate blow of Turner, nor the military measure of Gabriel; not the remorseless logic of bludgeon and torch—but the sober, sensible efforts of men and women who believed their condition abnormal, and slavery prejudicial to the largest growth of the human intellect. The eloquence of Otis, the impassioned appeals of Sewall, and the zeal of Eliot had rallied the languishing energies of the Negroes, and charged their hearts with the divine passion for liberty. They had learned to spell out the letters of freedom, and the meaning of the word had quite ravished their fainting souls. They had heard that the royal charter declared all the colonists British subjects; they had devoured the arguments of their white friends, and were now prepared to act on their own behalf. The slaves of Greece and Rome, it is true, petitioned the authorities for a relaxation of the severe laws that crushed their manhood; but they were captives from other nations, noted for government and a knowledge of the science of warfare. But it was left to the Negroes of Massachusetts to force their way into counts created only for white men, and win their cause!

On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1766, John Adams makes the following record in his diary:—

"5. Wednesday. Attended Court; heard the trial of an action of trespass, brought by a mulatto woman, for damages, for restraining her of her liberty. This is called suing for liberty; the first action that ever I knew of the sort, though I have heard there have been many."392

So as early as 1766 Mr. Adams records a case of "suing for liberty;" and though it was the first he had known of, nevertheless, he had "heard there have been many." How many of these cases were in Massachusetts it cannot be said with certainty, but there were "many." The case to which Mr. Adams makes reference was no doubt that of Jenny Slew vs. John Whipple, jun., cited by Dr. Moore. It being the earliest case mentioned anywhere in the records of the colony, great interest attaches to it.

"Jenny Slew of Ipswich in the County of Essex, spinster, Pltff., agst. John Whipple, Jun., of said Ipswich Gentleman, Deft., in a Plea of Trespass that the said John on the 29th day of January, A.D. 1762, at Ipswich aforesaid with force and arms took her the said Jenny, held and kept her in servitude as a slave in his service, and has restrained her of her liberty from that time to the fifth of March last without any lawful right & authority so to do and did her other injuries against the peace & to the damage of said Jenny Slew as she saith the sum of twenty-five pounds. This action was first brought at last March Court at Ipswich when & where the parties appeared & the case was continued by order of Court to the then next term when and where the Pltff appeared & the said John Whipple Jun, came by Edmund Trowbridge, Esq. his attorney & defended when he said that there is no such person in nature as Jenny Slew of Ipswich aforesaid, Spinster, & this the said John was ready to verify wherefore the writ should be abated & he prayed judgment accordingly which plea was overruled by the Court and afterwards the said John by the said Edmund made a motion to the Court & praying that another person might endorse the writ & be subject to cost if any should finally be for the Court but the Court rejected the motion and then Deft. saving his plea in abatement aforesaid said that he is not guilty as the plaintiff contends, & thereof put himself on the Country, & then the cause was continued to this term, and now the Pltff. reserving to herself the liberty of joining issue on the Deft's plea aforesaid in the appeal says that the defendant's plea aforesaid is an insufficient answer to the Plaintiff's declaration aforesaid and by law she is not held to reply thereto & she is ready to verify wherefore for want of a sufficient answer to the Plaintiff's declaration aforesaid she prays judgment for her damages & costs & the defendant consenting to the waiving of the demurrer on the appeal said his plea aforesaid is good & because the Pltff refuses to reply thereto He prays judgment for his cost. It is considered by the Court that the defendant's plea in chief aforesaid is good & that the said John Whipple recover of the said Jenny Slew costs tax at the Pltff appealed to the next Superior Court of Judicature to be holden for this County & entered into recognizance with sureties as the law directs for prosecuting her appeal to effect." Records of the Inferior Court of C.C.P., Vol.—, (Sept. 1760 to July 1766), page 502.

"Jenny Slew of Ipswich, in the County of Essex, Spinster, Appellant, versus John Whipple, Jr. of said Ipswich, Gentleman Appellee from the judgment of an Inferior Court of Common Pleas held at Newburyport within and for the County of Essex on the last Tuesday of September 1765 when and where the appellant was plaint., and the appellee was defendant in a plea of trespass, for that the said John upon the 29th day of January, A.D. 1762, at Ipswich aforesaid with force and arms took her the said Jenny held & kept her in servitude as a slave in his service & has restrained her of her liberty from that time to the fifth of March 1765 without any lawful right or authority so to do & did other injuries against the Peace & to the damage of the said Jenny Slew, as she saith, the sum of twenty-five pounds, at which Inferior Court, judgment was rendered upon the demurrer then that the said John Whipple recover against the said Jenny Slew costs. This appeal was brought forward at the Superior Court of Judicature &c., holden at Salem, within & for the County of Essex on the first Tuesday of last November, from whence it was continued to the last term of this Court for this County by consent & so from thence unto this Court, and now both parties appeared & the demurrer aforesaid being waived by consent & issue joined upon the plea tendered at said Inferior Court & on file. The case after full hearing was committed to a jury sworn according to law to try the same who returned their verdict therein upon oath, that is to say, they find for appellant reversion of the former judgment four pounds money damage & costs. It's therefore considered by the Court, that the former judgment be reversed & that the said Slew recover against the said Whipple the sum of four pounds lawful money of this Province damage & costs taxed 9l. 9s. 6d.

"Exon. issued 4 Dec. 1766." Records of the Superior Court of Judicature (vol. 1766–7), page 175.

The next of the "freedom cases," in chronological order, was the case of Newport vs. Billing, and was doubtless the one in which John Adams was engaged in the latter part of September, 1768.393 It was begun in the Inferior Court, where the decision was against the slave, Amos Newport. The plaintiff took an appeal to the highest court in the colony; and that court gave as its solemn opinion, "that the said Amos [Newport] was not a freeman, as he alleged, but the proper slave of the said Joseph [Billing]."394 It should not be lost sight of, that not only the Fundamental laws of 1641, but the highest court in Massachusetts, held, as late as 1768, that there was property in man!

The case of James vs. Lechmere is the one "which has been for more than half a century the grand cheval de bataille of the champions of the historic fame of Massachusetts."395 Richard Lechmere resided in Cambridge, and held to servitude for life a Negro named "James." On the 2d of May, 1769, this slave began an action in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas. The action was "in trespass for assault and battery, and imprisoning and holding the plaintiff in servitude from April 11, 1758, to the date of the writ." The judgment of the Inferior Court was adverse to the slave; but on the 31st of October, 1769, the Superior Court of Suffolk had the case settled by compromise. A long line of worthies in Massachusetts have pointed with pride to this decision as the legal destruction of slavery in that State. But it "is shown by the records and files of Court to have been brought up from the Inferior Court by sham demurrer, and, after one or two continuances, settled by the parties."396 The truth of history demands that the facts be given to the world. It will not be pleasant for the people of Massachusetts to have this delusion torn from their affectionate embrace. It was but a mere historical chimera, that ought not to have survived a single day; and, strangely enough, it has existed until the present time among many intelligent people. This case has been cited for the last hundred years as having settled the question of bond servitude in Massachusetts, when the fact is, there was no decision in this instance! And the claim that Richard Lechmere's slave James was adjudged free "upon the same grounds, substantially, as those upon which Lord Mansfield discharged Sommersett," is absurd and baseless.397 For on the 27th of April, 1785 (thirteen years after the famous decision), Lord Mansfield himself said, in reference to the Sommersett case, "that his decision went no farther than that the master cannot by force compel the slave to go out of the kingdom." Thirty-five years of suffering and degradation remained for the Africans after the decision of Lord Mansfield. His lordship's decision was rendered on the 22d of June, 1772; and in 1807, thirty-five years afterwards, the British government abolished the slave-trade. And then, after twenty-seven years more of reflection, slavery was abolished in English possessions. So, sixty-two years after Lord Mansfield's decision, England emancipated her slaves! It took only two generations for the people to get rid of slavery under the British flag. How true, then, that "facts are stranger than fiction"!

In 1770 John Swain of Nantucket brought suit against Elisha Folger, captain of the vessel "Friendship," for allowing a Mr. Roth to receive on board his ship a Negro boy named "Boston," and for the recovery of the slave. This was a jury-trial in the Court of Common Pleas. The jury brought in a verdict in favor of the slave, and he was "manumitted by the magistrates." John Swain took an appeal from the decision of the Nantucket Court to the Supreme Court of Boston, but never prosecuted it.398 In 1770, in Hanover, Plymouth County, a Negro asked his master to grant him his freedom as his right. The master refused; and the Negro, with assistance of counsel, succeeded in obtaining his liberty.399

"In October of 1773, an action was brought against Richard Greenleaf, of Newburyport, by Cæsar [Hendrick,] a colored man, whom he claimed as his slave, for holding him in bondage. He laid the damages at fifty pounds. The counsel for the plaintiff, in whose favor the jury brought in their verdict and awarded him eighteen pounds damages and costs, was John Lowell, esquire, afterward judge Lowell. This case excited much interest, as it was the first, if not the only one of the kind, that ever occurred in the county."400

This case is mentioned in full by Mr. Dane in his "Abridgment and Digest of American Law," vol. ii. p. 426.

In the Inferior Court of Common Pleas, in the county of Essex, July term in 1774, a Negro slave of one Caleb Dodge of Beverly brought an action against his master for restraining his liberty. The jury gave a verdict in favor of the Negro, on the ground that there was "no law of the Province to hold a man to serve for life."401 This is the only decision we have been able to find based upon such a reason. The jury may have reached this conclusion from a knowledge of the provisions of the charter of the colony; or they may have found a verdict in accordance with the charge of the court. The following significant language in the charter of the colony could not have escaped the court:—

"That all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs and successors, which go to and inhabit within our said province and territory, and every of their children which shall happen to be born there, or on the seas in going thither, or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within the dominions of us, our heirs and successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, as if they and every of them were born within our realm of England."

The Rev. Dr. Belknap, speaking of these cases which John Adams speaks of as "suing for liberty," gives an idea of the line of argument used by the Negroes:—

"On the part of the blacks it was pleaded, that the royal charter expressly declared all persons born or residing in the province, to be as free as the King's subjects in Great Britain; that by the laws of England, no man could be deprived of his liberty but by the judgment of his peers; that the laws of the province respecting an evil existing, and attempting to mitigate or regulate it, did not authorize it; and, on some occasions, the plea was, that though the slavery of the parents be admitted, yet no disability of that kind could descend to children."402

The argument pursued by the masters was—

"The pleas on the part of the masters were, that the negroes were purchased in open market, and bills of sale were produced in evidence; that the laws of the province recognized slavery as existing in it, by declaring that no person should manumit his slave without giving bond for his maintenance."403

It is well that posterity should know the motives that inspired judges and juries to grant these Negroes their prayer for liberty.

"In 1773, etc., some slaves did recover against their masters; but these cases are no evidence that there could not be slaves in the Province, for sometimes masters permitted their slaves to recover, to get clear of maintaining them as paupers when old and infirm; the effect, as then generally understood, of a judgment against the master on this point of slavery; hence, a very feeble defence was often made by the masters, especially when sued by the old or infirm slaves, as the masters could not even manumit their slaves, without indemnifying their towns against their maintenance, as town paupers."

And Chief-Justice Parsons, in the case of Winchendon vs. Hatfield, in error, says—

"Several negroes, born in this country of imported slaves demanded their freedom of their masters by suit at law, and obtained it by a judgment of court. The defence of the master was feebly made, for such was the temper of the times, that a restless discontented slave was worth little; and when his freedom was obtained in a course of legal proceedings, the master was not holden for his future support, if he became poor."

Thus did the slaves of Massachusetts fill their mouths with arguments, and go before the courts. The majority of them, aged and infirm, were allowed to gain their cause in order that their masters might be relieved from supporting their old age. The more intelligent, and, consequently, the more determined ones, were allowed to have their freedom from prudential reasons, more keenly felt than frankly expressed by their masters. In some instances, however, noble, high-minded Christians, on the bench and on juries, were led to their conclusions by broad ideas of justice and humanity. But the spirit of the age was cold and materialistic. With but a very few exceptions, the most selfish and constrained motives conspired to loose the chains of the bondmen in the colony.

The slaves were not slow to see that the colonists were in a frame of mind to be persuaded on the question of emancipation. Their feelings were at white heat in anticipation of the Revolutionary struggle, and the slaves thought it time to strike out a few sparks of sympathy.

On the 25th of June, 1773, a petition was presented to the House of Representatives, and read before that body during the afternoon session. It was the petition "of Felix Holbrook, and others, Negroes, praying that they may be liberated from a state of Bondage, and made Freemen of this Community, and that this Court would give and grant to them some part of the unimproved Lands belonging to the Province, for a settlement, or relieve them in such other Way as shall seem good and wise upon the Whole." After its reading, a motion prevailed to refer it to a select committee for consideration, with leave to report at any time. It was therefore "ordered, that Mr. Hancock, Mr. Greenleaf, Mr. Adams, Capt. Dix, Mr. Pain, Capt. Heath, and Mr. Pickering consider this Petition, and report what may be proper to be done."404 It was a remarkably strong committee. There were the patriotic Hancock, the scholarly Greenleaf, the philosophic Pickering, and the eloquent Samuel Adams. It was natural that the Negro petitioners should have expected something. Three days after the committee was appointed, on the 28th of June, they recommended "that the further Consideration of the Petition be referred till next session." The report was adopted, and the petition laid over until the "next session."405

But the slaves did not lose heart. They found encouragement among a few noble spirits, and so were ready to urge the Legislature to a consideration of their petition at the next session, in the winter of 1774. The following letter shows that they were anxious and earnest.

"SAMUEL ADAMS TO JOHN PICKERING, JR.

"Boston, Jany. 8, 1774.

"Sir—

As the General Assembly will undoubtedly meet on the 26th of this month, the Negroes whose petition lies on file, and is referred for consideration, are very solicitous for the Event of it, and having been informed that you intended to consider it at your leisure Hours in the Recess of the Court, they earnestly wish you would compleat a Plan for their Relief. And in the meantime, if it be not too much Trouble, they ask it as a favor that you would by a Letter enable me to communicate to them the general outlines of your Design. I am, with sincere regard," etc.406

It is rather remarkable, that on the afternoon of the first day of the session—Jan. 26, 1774—the "Petition of a number of Negro Men, which was entered on the Journal of the 25th of June last, and referred for Consideration to this session," was "read again, together with a Memorial of the same Petitioners, and Ordered, that Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Adams, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pain, and Mr. Greenleaf consider the same, and report."407 The public feeling on the matter was aroused. It was considered as important as, if not more important than, any measure before the Legislature.

The committee were out until March, considering what was best to do about the petition. On the 2d of March, 1774, they reported to the House "a Bill to prevent the Importation of Negroes and others as slaves into this Province," when it was read a first time. On the 3d of March it was read a second time in the morning session; in the afternoon session, read a third time, and passed to be engrossed. It was then sent up to the Council to be concurred in, by Col. Gerrish, Col. Thayer, Col. Bowers, Mr. Pickering and Col. Bacon.408 On the next day the bill "passed in Council with Amendments,"409 and was returned to the House. On the 5th of March the House agreed to concur in Council amendments, and on the 7th of March passed the bill as amended. On the day following it was placed upon its passage in the Council, and carried. It was then sent down to the governor to receive his signature, in order to become the law of the Province. That official's approval was withheld, and the reason given was, "the secretary said (on returning the approved bills) that his Excellency had not had time to consider the other Bills that had been laid before him."410

It is quite fortunate that the bill was preserved;411 for it is now, in the certain light of a better civilization, a document of great historic value.

"ANNO REGNI REGIS GEORGII TERTII &c. DECIMO QUARTO.

"An Act to prevent the importation of Negroes or other Persons as Slaves into this Province, and the purchasing them within the same, and for making provision for relief of the children of such as are already subjected to slavery Negroes Mulattoes & Indians born within this Province.

"Whereas the Importation of Persons as Slaves into this Province has been found detrimental to the interest of his Majesty's subjects therein; And it being apprehended that the abolition thereof will be beneficial to the Province—

"Be it therefore Enacted by the Governor Council and House of Representatives that whoever shall after the Tenth Day of April next import or bring into this Province by Land or Water any Negro or other Person or Persons whether Male or Female as a Slave or Slaves shall for each and every such Person so imported or brought into this Province forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred Pounds to be recovered by presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury and when so recovered to be to his Majesty for the use of this Government or by action of debt in any of his Majesty's Courts of Record and in case of such recovery the one moiety thereof to be to his majesty for the use of this Government the other moiety to the Person or Persons who shall sue for the same.

"And be it further Enacted that from and after the Tenth Day of April next any Person or Persons that shall purchase any Negro or other Person or Persons as a Slave or Slaves imported or brought into this Province as aforesaid shall forfeit and pay for every Negro or other Person so purchased Fifty Pounds to be recovered and disposed of in the same way and manner as before directed.

"And be it further Enacted that every Person, concerned in importing or bringing into this Province, or purchasing any such Negro or other Person or Persons as aforesaid within the same; who shall be unable, or refuse, to pay the Penalties or forfeitures ordered by this Act; shall for every such offence suffer Twelve months' imprisonment without Bail or mainprise.

"Provided allways that nothing in this act contained shall extend to subject to the Penalties aforesaid the Masters, Mariners, Owners or Freighters of any such Vessel or Vessels, as before the said Tenth Day of April next shall have sailed from any Port or Ports in this Province, for any Port or Ports not within this Government, for importing or bringing into this Province any Negro or other Person or Persons as Slaves who in the prosecution of the same voyage may be imported or brought into the same. Provided he shall not offer them or any of them for sale.

"Provided also that this act shall not be construed to extend to any such Person or Persons, occasionally hereafter coming to reside within this Province, or passing thro' the same, who may bring such Negro or other Person or Persons as necessary servants into this Province provided that the stay or residence of such Person or Persons shall not exceed Twelve months or that such Person or Persons within said time send such Negro or other Person or Persons out of this Province there to be and remain, and also that during said Residence such Negro or other Person or Persons shall not be sold or alienated within the same.

"∀ And be it further Enacted and declared that nothing in this act contained shall extend or be construed to extend for retaining or holding in perpetual servitude any Negro or other Person or Persons now inslaved within this Province but that every such Negro or other Person or Persons shall be intituled to all the Benefits such Negro or other Person or Persons might by Law have been intituled to, in case this act had not been made.

"In the House of Representatives March 2, 1774. Read a first & second Time. March 3, 1774. Read a third Time & passed to be engrossed. Sent up for concurrence.

T. Cushing, Spkr.

"In Council March 3, 1774. Read a first time. 4. Read a second Time and passed in Concurrence to be Engrossed with the Amendment at ∀ dele the whole Clause. Sent down for concurrence.

Thos. Flucker, Secry.

In the House of Representatives March 4, 1774. Read and concurred.

T. Cushing, Spkr."

Like all other measures for the suppression of the slave-trade, this bill failed to become a law. If Massachusetts desired to free herself from this twofold cross of woe—even if her great jurists could trace the law that justified the abolition of the curse, in the pages of the royal charter—were not the British governors of the Province but conserving the corporation interests of the home government and the members of the Royal African Company? By the Treaty of Utrecht, England had agreed to furnish the Spanish West Indies with Negroes for the space of thirty years. She had aided all her colonies to establish slavery, and had sent her navies to guard the vessels that robbed Africa of five hundred thousand souls annually.412 This was the cruel work of England. For all her sacrifices in the war, the millions of treasure she had spent, the blood of her children so prodigally shed, with the glories of Blenheim, of Ramillies, of Oudenarde and Malplaquet, England found her consolation and reward in seizing and enjoying, as the lion's share of results of the grand alliance against the Bourbons, the exclusive right for thirty years of selling African slaves to the Spanish West Indies and the coast of America!413 Why should Gov. Hutchinson sign a bill that was intended to choke the channel of a commerce in human souls that was so near the heart of the British throne?

Gov. Hutchinson was gone, and Gen. Gage was now governor. He convened the General Court at Salem, in June, 1774. On the 10th of June the same bill that Gov. Hutchinson had refused to sign was introduced, with a few immaterial changes, and pushed to a third reading, and engrossed the same day. It was called up on the 16th of June, and passed. It was sent up to the Council, where it was read a third time, and concurred in. But the next day the General Court was dissolved! And over the grave of this, the last attempt at legislation to suppress the slave-trade in Massachusetts, was written: "Not to have been consented to by the governor"!

These repeated efforts at anti-slavery legislation were strategic and politic. The gentlemen who hurried those bills through the House and Council, almost regardless of rules, knew that the royal governors would never affix their signatures to them. But the colonists, having put themselves on record, could appeal to the considerate judgment of the impatient Negroes; while the refusal of the royal governors to give the bills the force of law did much to drive the Negroes to the standard of the colonists. In the long night of darkness that was drawing its sable curtains about the colonial government, the loyalty of the Negroes was the lonely but certain star that threw its peerless light upon the pathway of the child of England so soon to be forced to lift its parricidal hand against its rapacious and cruel mother.

380 Felt, vol. ii. p. 416.

381 Newspaper Literature, vol. i. p. 31.

382 Lyman's Report, quoted by Dr. Moore.

383 House Journal, p. 387.

384 Ibid.

385 House Journals; see, also, Gen. Court Records, May, 1763, to May, 1767, p. 485.

386 Slavery in Mass., pp. 131, 132.

387 Felt, vol. ii. pp. 416, 417.

388 Hist. of Leicester, pp. 442, 443.

389 Freeman's Hist. of Cape Cod, vol. ii. pp. 114, 115.

390 Boston Gazette, Aug. 17, 1761.

391 Letters of Mrs. Adams, p. 20.

392 Adams's Works, vol. ii. p. 200.

393 Adams's Works, vol. ii, p. 213.

394 Records, 1768, fol., p. 284.

395 This is the case referred to by the late Charles Sumner in his famous speech in answer to Senator Butler of South Carolina; see also Slavery in Mass., p. 115, 116; Washburn's Judicial Hist. of Mass., p. 202; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 1863–64, p. 322.

396 Records, 1769, fol. p. 196. Gray in Quincy's Reports, p. 30, note, quoted by Dr. Moore.

397 Slavery in Mass., pp. 115, 116, note.

398 Lyman's Report, 1822.

399 Slavery in Mass., p. 118.

400 Hist. of Newbury, p. 339.

401 The Watchman's Alarm, p. 28, note; also Slavery in Mass., p. 119.

402 Mass. Hist Soc. Coll., vol. iv. 1st Series, pp. 202, 203.

403 Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 564.

404 House Journal, p. 85, quoted by Dr. Moore.

405 House Journal, p. 94.

406 Slavery in Mass., p. 136.

407 House Journal, p. 104.

408 House Journal p. 224.

409 Ibid., p. 226.

410 House Journal, Gen Court Records, xxx. pp. 248, 264; also, Slavery in Mass, p. 137.

411 Mass. Archives, Domestic Relations, 1643–1774, vol. ix. p. 457.

412 Ethiope, p. 12.

413 Bolingbroke, pp. 346–348.