them slaves, as well as to "great gain." The same year in which the Pilgrims came to Plymouth, twenty negroes were brought to Virginia as slaves for life, no doubt to the great comfort of the "gentlemen" there. It is not long before we find them in New-England; not long before Boston is concerned in the slave-trade, from which she is not yet become free; for while we are writing this paper, we learn that a ship from Boston, the "Lucy Anne," has lately been seized, loaded with five hundred and fortyseven slaves! Another vessel from the same port, the "Pilot," is also in British custody for the same offence. The actual seizure of five hundred and forty-seven slaves in Africa is by no means the most infamous part of the support which this city furnishes to slavery, only one of the obvious indications of a spirit well known to exist in Boston, and by no means confined to "illiterate and profane persons. The laws of Massachusetts, in 1641, justified enslaving "captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold unto us."

In 1662, Virginia revised the rule of the common law, and declared that children should follow the condition of their mother. All the Southern States have since adopted the same iniquitous provision. In 1663, Maryland made a law that the child of a free white woman shall follow the condition of the father if he be a slave: this was repealed a few years later; but a fine of ten thousand pounds of tobacco was imposed on the clergymen or the masters and mistresses who promoted or connived at the marriage of such persons.

In 1667, Virginia declared that Christianity was no bar to slavery-but the slave should not escape from bondage by communion and baptism; killing a slave was declared not felony. Indians "imported by shipping," and not Christians, might be slaves for life. In 1671, there were two thousand "black slaves" in Virginia, and six thousand" Christian servants;" of whom about fifteen hundred were imported yearly .In 1682, all negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, brought into the colony by sea or land, Christians or not, were declared slaves for life, unless they were of In 1692, an Christian parentage or country. 66 act for suppressing outlying slaves," declares that, if they resist, run away, or refuse to surrender, "they may be lawfully

killed or destroyed with guns, or any other way whatever." The State was to indemnify the master for the loss, giving four thousand pounds of tobacco for a negro. A thousand pounds of tobacco were offered to any one who should kill a certain runaway-the "negro slave Billy." In 1705, laws were passed to prevent intermarriages between blacks and whites, and against emancipating slaves. Summary tribunals were established for the trial of slaves, "without the solemnity of a jury." They were to be kept in jail, "well laden with irons." Even in Pennsylvania, William Penn could not secure the right of equal marriage for slaves! As slaves increased-and about one thousand were annually imported into Virginia in 1720, and for some time after the laws became more rigorous. It was made more difficult to set them free.

South Carolina has always been remarkable for the rigour of her slave laws. In 1670, the "fundamental and unalterable constitution" provided that every freeman "shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves." In 1704, we find one James Moore a "needy, forward, and ambitious man," kidnapping Indians to sell as slaves. Many others did the same in 1712, on a large scale, taking eight hundred at one time, and re-annexing Indian villages. A law was made the same year making it the duty of every person to arrest any slave found abroad without a pass, and give him "moderate chastisement." A slave guilty of petty larceny, for the first offence, was to be " publicly and severely whipped;" for the second, "one of his ears to be cut off," or 66 be branded on the forehead with a hot iron;" for the third, he was to have his nose slit ;" for the fourth, to "suffer death, or other punishment," at the discretion of the court. Any two justices of the peace, with three freeholders whom they might summon, formed a court for the trial of any slave, charged with any crime, from "chicken-stealing" to insurrection and murder; and was competent to sentence the accused to punishment, even if it were death, and have it executed forthwith, on their warrant alone! This mode of trial remains in force in South Carolina till this day. It was a capital crime for a slave to run out of the province, or for a white man to entice him to do so.

VOL. X.-Critical Writings, 2.

66

19

เ

"Any slave running away for twenty days at once, for the first offence was to be 'severely and publicly whipped.' In case the master neglected to inflict this punishment, any justice might order it to be inflicted by the constable, at the master's expense. For the second offence, the runaway was to be branded with the letter R on the right cheek. If the master omitted it, he was to forfeit ten pounds, and any justice of the peace might order the branding done. For the third offence, the runaway, if absent thirty days, was to be whipped, and have one of his ears cut off; the master neglecting to do it to forfeit twenty pounds; any justice, on complaint, to order it done as before. For the fourth offence, the runaway, 'if a man, was to be gelt,' to be paid for by the province, if he died under the operation ; if a woman, she was to be severely whipped, branded on the left cheek with the letter R, and her left ear cut off. Any master neglecting for twenty days to inflict these atrocious cruelties, was to forfeit his property in the slave to any informer who might complain of him within six months. Any captain or commander of a company, ‘on notice of the haunt, residence, and hiding-place of any runaway slaves,' was 'to pursue, apprehend, and take them, either alive or dead,' being in either case entitled to a premium of from two to four pounds for each slave. All persons wounded or disabled on such expeditions were to be compensated by the public. If any slave under punishment'shall suffer in life or member, which,' says the act, seldom happens, no person whatsoever shall be liable to any penalty therefor.' Any person killing a slave out of 'wantonness,' bloody-mindedness,' or 'cruel intention,' was to forfeit 'fifty pounds current money,' or if the slave belonged to another person, twentyfive pounds to the public, and the slave's value to the owner. No master was to allow his slaves to hire their own time, or, by a supplementary act, two years after, 'to plant for themselves any corn, pease, or rice, or to keep any stock of hogs, cattle, or horses.'

"Since charity and the Christian religion which we profess,' says the concluding section of this remarkable act, 'obliges us to wish well to the souls of men, and that religion may not be made a pretence to alter any man's property and right, and that no person may neglect to baptize their negroes or slaves for fear that thereby they should be manumitted and set free,'' it shall be and is hereby declared lawful for any negro or Indian slave, or any other slave or slaves whatsoever, to receive and profess the Christian faith, and to be thereunto baptized; but notwithstanding such slave or slaves shall receive or profess the Christian religion, and be baptized, he or they shall not thereby be manumitted or set free."

"South Carolina, it thus appears, assumed at the beginning the same bad pre-eminence on the subject of slave legislation which she still maintains."-Vol. II. pp. 273-275.

At this day, no man in South Carolina can be elected as representative to the Assembly, unless legally seized and possessed of ten slaves in his own right.

At first, slavery was not permitted in Georgia; but many of the settlers of that province were taken from workhouses, from debtors' prisons, and even worse places; "selected from the most helpless, querulous, and grasping portion of the community," "broken traders and insolvent debtors;" men "found in the end as worthless as they were discontented and troublesome." "They were very importunate," says Mr Hildreth, " for permission to hold slaves, without whose labours they insisted lands in Georgia could not be cultivated."

"Most of the early settlers were altogether unworthy of the assistance they received,' so says Stevens, a recent and judicious native historian of the colony, who has written from very full materials. 'They were disappointed in the quality and fertility of their lands; were unwilling to labour; hung for support upon the trustees' store; were clamorous for privileges to which they had no right; and fomented discontent and faction where it was hoped they would live together in brotherly peace and charity.' What wonder that men so idle, thriftless, and ungrateful, called loudly for slaves, whose unpaid labours might support them for life?"—Vol. II. p. 371.

So they had their slavery, and thereby Georgia attained her present condition and-prospects!

The gradual progress of liberty is remarkable in NewEngland. Hubbard, with the spirit of a priest, complains of the "inordinate love of liberty or fear of restraint, especially in matters of religion," which prevailed in 1647, and speaks of "all that rabble of men that went under the name of Independents-whether Anabaptists, Antinomians, Familists, or Seekers," with the same theocratic contempt now exhibited by sectarian bigotry and personal malice, which has not the power to bite, and only barks at the freemen of God, who go on their way rejoicing. There are in New-England two visible bulwarks of liberty—the free school and the free printing press. In 1639, the first printing press in America was set up at Cambridge. However it was kept under a strict censorship, and no other was for a long time allowed to be set up. The first three things printed are symbolical of New-England: the

"Freeman's Oath" was the proof-shot of the press, then came an "Almanac made for New-England," then the "Psalms turned into Metre," also "made for New-England," by men who knew how to

"Crack the ear of melody,

And break the legs of time."

The freedom of the press was not allowed, however, for a long time. Andros was to allow no printing in 1686; King William also forbade it in 1688. In 1719, Governor Shute objected to the printing of an obnoxious paper by the order of the General Court, declaring that he had power over the press, and would prevent it. The paper was printed; the Governor wished to prosecute the printer, but the Attorney-General could find no law on which to frame an indictment. This was by no means the last instance of an attempt by men "clothed with a little brief authority," to shackle the freedom of the press. The attempt has been repeated in Massachusetts in our own day, but what was once dangerous is now simply laughable. A donkey bracing himself against a locomotive is not a very formidable antagonist, yet he might have overturned the "Ark of Jehovah" when drawn by "two heifers" with no one to guide them.

In 1682, a printing press was established in Virginia, and the laws of that year were printed. But the governor, Culpepper, put the printer under bonds to print nothing till His Majesty's pleasure should be known. The next year, King James the Second forbade any printing press in the colony, and Virginia had none till 1729.

In 1687, the third printing press was set up at Philadelphia. The fourth was at New York, in 1692.

The first newspaper in America was established at Boston, in 1704, only containing advertisements and items of news; a regular newspaper, discussing public affairs, was begun here in 1722, conducted by James Franklin; but it perished for want of support," says Mr Hildreth," ominous fate of the first free press in America!”

The records of Boston contain this entry, under date of April 13, 1635 "It was then generally agreed upon, that our brother Philemon Purmont shall be instructed to become schoolmaster for the teaching and nurturing of chil