26th day of ye 9th mo. 1716.
"An epistle from the last Quarterly Meeting was read in this, and ye matter referred to this meeting, viz., whether it is agreeable to truth for friends to purchase slaves and keep them term of liffe, was considered, and ye sense and judgment of this meeting is, that it is not agreeable to truth for friends to purchase slaves and hold them term of liffe.
"Nathaniel Starbuck, junr is to draw out this meeting's judgment concerning friends not buying slaves and keeping them term of liffe, and send it to the next Quarterly Meeting, and to sign it in ye meeting's behalf."[377]
Considering the prejudice and persecution that pursued this good people, their testimony against slavery is very remarkable. In 1729-30 Elihu Coleman of Nantucket, a minister of the society of Friends, wrote a book against slavery, published in 1733, entitled, "A Testimony against that Anti-Christian Practice of making Slaves of men.[378] It was well written, and the truth fearlessly told for the conservative, self-seeking period he lived in. He says,—
"I am not unthoughtful of the ferment or stir that such discourse as this may make among some, who (like Demetrius of old) may say, by this craft we have our wealth, which caused the people to cry out with one voice, great is Diana of the Ephesians, whom all Asia and the world worship."
He examined and refuted the arguments put forth in defence of slavery, charged slaveholders with idleness, and contended that slavery was the mother of vice, at war with the laws of nature and of God. Others caught the spirit of reform, and the agitation movement gained recruits and strength every year. Felt says, "1765. Pamphlets and newspapers discuss the subjects of slavery with increasing zeal." The colonists were aroused. Men were taking one side or the other of a question of great magnitude. In 1767 an anonymous tract of twenty octavo pages against slavery made its appearance in Boston. It was written by Nathaniel Appleton, a co-worker with Otis, and an advanced thinker on the subject of emancipation. It was in the form of a letter addressed to a friend, and was entitled, "Considerations on Slavery." The Rev. Samuel Webster Salisbury published on the 2d of March, 1769, "An Earnest Address to my Country on Slavery." He opened his article with an argument showing the inconsistency of a Christian people holding slaves, pictured the evil results of slavery, and then asked,—
"What then is to be done? Done! for God's sake break every yoke and let these oppressed ones go free without delay—let them taste the sweets of that liberty, which we so highly prize, and are so earnestly supplicating God and man to grant us: nay, which we claim as the natural right of every man. Let me beseech my countrymen to put on bowels of compassion for these their brethren (for so I must call them,) yea, let me beseech you for your own sake and for God's sake, to break every yoke and let the oppressed go free."[379]
Begun among the members of the bar and the pulpit, the common folk at length felt a lively interest in the subject of emancipation. An occasional burst of homely, vigorous eloquence from the pulpit on the duties of the hour inflamed the conscience of the pew with a noble zeal for a righteous cause. The afflatus of liberty sat upon the people as cloven tongues. Every village, town, and city had its orators whose only theme was emancipation. "The pulpit and the press were not silent, and sermons and essays in behalf of the enslaved Africans were continually making their appearance." The public conscience was being rapidly educated, and from the hills of Berkshire to the waters of Massachusetts Bay the fires of liberty were burning.
[260] George H. Moore, LL.D., for many years librarian of the New-York Historical Society, but at present the efficient superintendent of the Lenox Library, in his "Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts," has summoned nearly all the orators and historians of Massachusetts to the bar of history. He leaves them open to one of three charges, viz., evading the truth, ignorance of it, or falsifying the record. And in addition to this work, which is authority, his "Additional Notes" glow with an energy and perspicuity of style which lead me to conclude that Dr. Moore works admirably under the spur, and that his refined sarcasm, unanswerable logic, and critical accuracy give him undisputed place amongst the ablest writers of our times.
[261] Wood's New-England Prospect, 1634, p. 77.
[262] Slavery in Mass., p. 7.
[263] Ibid., pp. 4, 5, and 6.
[264] Elliott's New-England Hist., pp. 167-205.
[265] Winthrop's Journal, Feb. 26, 1638, vol. i. p. 254; see, also, Felt, vol. ii. p. 230.
[266] Dr. Moore backs his statement as to the time The Desire was built by quoting from Winthrop, vol. i. p. 193. But there is a mistake somewhere as to the correct date. Winthrop says she was built in 1636; but I find in Mr. Drake's "Founders of New England," pp. 31, 32, this entry: "More (June) XXth, 1635. In the Desire de Lond. Pearce, and bond for New Eng. p'r cert, fro ij Justices of Peace and ministers of All Saints lionian in Northampton." If she sailed in 1635, she must have been built earlier.
[267] Dr. George H. Moore says Josselyn's Voyages were printed in 1664. This is an error. They were not published until ten years later, in 1674. In 1833 the Massachusetts Historical Society printed the work in the third volume and third series of their collection.
[268] Josselyn, p. 28.
[269] Ibid., p. 250.
[270] Ibid., p. 258.
[271] Slavery in Mass., p. 9.
[272] Mass. Hist Coll., vol. iv. 4th Series, p. 333, sq.
[273] Mr. Bancroft (Centenary Edition, vol. i. p. 137) says, "The earliest importation of Negro slaves into New England was made in 1637, from Providence Isle, in the Salem ship Desire." But Winthrop (vol. i. p. 254, under date of the 26th of February, 1638) says, "The Desire returned from the West Indies after seven months." He also states (ibid., p. 193) that The Desire was "built at Marblehead in 1636." But this may or may not be true according to the old method of keeping time.
[274] Palfrey's Hist. of N.E., vol. ii. p. 30, note.
[275] Josselyn, p. 257.
[276] Elliott's New-England Hist., vol. ii. pp. 57, 58.
[277] Hildreth, vol. i, p. 270, sq.
[278] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., pp. 52, 23.
[279] Slavery in Mass., p. 13, note.
[280] Slavery in Mass., pp. 18, 19.
[281] Ibid., p. 12.
[282] Elliott's New-England Hist., vol. i. p. 383.
[283] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 278.
[284] Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. iv. 4th Series, p. 334.
[285] Quoted by Dr. Moore, p. 20.
[286] Commonwealth vs. Aves, 18 Pickering, p. 208.
[287] Andover vs. Canton, Mass. Reports, 551, 552, quoted by Dr. Moore.
[288] Kendall's Travels, vol. ii. p. 179.
[289] The following note, if it refers to the kidnapped Negroes, gives an earlier date,—"29th May, 1644. Mr. Blackleach his petition about the Mores was consented to, to be committed to the eldrs, to enforme us of the mind of God herein, & then further to consider it."—Mass. Records, vol. ii. p. 67.
[290] Bancroft, Centennial edition, vol. i. p. 137.
[291] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 282.
[292] The petition is rather a remarkable paper, and is printed below. It is evident that the judge was in earnest. And yet the court, while admitting the petition, tried the case on only one ground, man-stealing.
To the honored general court. The oath I took this yeare att my enterance upon the place of assistante was to this effect: That I would truly endeavour the advancement of the gospell and the good of the people of this plantation (to the best of my skill) dispencing justice equally and impartially (according to the laws of God and this land) in all cases wherein I act by virtue of my place. I conceive myself called by virtue of my place to act (according to this oath) in the case concerning the negers taken by captain Smith and Mr. Keser; wherein it is apparent that Mr. Keser gave chace to certaine negers; and upon the same day tooke divers of them; and at another time killed others; and burned one of their townes. Omitting several misdemeanours, which accompanied these acts above mentioned, I conceive the acts themselves to bee directly contrary to these following laws (all of which are capitall by the word of God; and two of them by the lawes of this jurisdiction).
The act (or acts) of murder (whether by force or fraude) are expressly contrary both to the law of God, and the law of this country.
The act of stealing negers, or taking them by force (Whether it be considered as theft or robbery) is (as I conceive) expressly contrary, both to the law of God, and the law of this country.
The act of chaceing the negers (as aforesayde) upon the sabbath day (being a servile worke and such as cannot be considered under any other heade) is expressly capitall by the law of God.
These acts and outrages being committed where there was noe civill government, which might call them to accompt, and the persons, by whom they were committed beeing of our jurisdiction, I conceive this court to bee the ministers of God in this case, and therefore my humble request is that the severall offenders may be imprisoned by the order of this court, and brought into their deserved censure in convenient time; and this I humbly crave that soe the sinn they have committed may be upon their own heads, and not upon ourselves (as otherwise it will.)
Yrs in all christean observance,
The house of deputs thinke meete that this petition shall be granted, and desire our honored magistrats concurrence herein.
—Coffin's Newbury, pp. 335, 336.
[293] Laws Camb., 1675, p. 15.
[294] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 368.
[295] Coffin, p. 335.
[296] Drake (p. 288) says, "This act, however, was afterwards repealed or disregarded."
[297] Mass. Records, vol ii. p 129.
[298] Moore, Appendix, 251, sq.
[299] Slavery in Mass., p. 30.
[300] Hildreth, vol. i. p, 282.
[301] Slavery in Mass., p. 49. See, also, Drake's Boston, p. 441, note.
[302] Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. viii. 3d Series, p. 337.
[303] Slavery in Mass., p. 50.
[304] Coll. Amer. Stat. Asso., vol. i. p. 586.
[305] Douglass's British Settlements, vol. i. p. 531.
[306] Drake, p. 714. I cannot understand how Dr. Moore gets 1,514 slaves in Boston in 1742, except from Douglass. His "1742" should read 1752, and his "1,514" slaves should read 1,541 slaves.
[307] "There is a curious illustration of 'the way of putting it' in Massachusetts, in Mr. Felt's account of this 'census of slaves,' in the Collections of the American Statistical Association, vol. i. p, 208. He says that the General Court passed this order 'for the purpose of having an accurate account of slaves in our Commonwealth, as a subject in which the people were becoming much interested, relative to the cause of liberty!" There is not a particle of authority for this suggestion—such a motive for their action never existed anywhere but in the imagination of the writer himself!"—Slavery in Mass., p. 51, note.
[308] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., p. 748.
[309] Ibid.
[310] Slavery in Mass., p. 61.
[311] Hildreth, vol. ii. pp. 269, 270.
[312] Drake's Boston, p. 574.
[313] Spectator, No. 215, Nov. 6, 1711.
[314] Slavery in Mass., p. 64.
[315] "In the inventory of the estate of Samuel Morgaridge, who died in 1754, I find,
"In the inventory of Henry Rolfe's estate, taken in April, 1711, I find the following, namely,
[316] Slavery in Mass., pp. 64, 65.
[317] Drake, 583, note.
[318] Here is a sample of the sales of those days: "In 1716, Rice Edwards, of Newbury, shipwright, sells to Edmund Greenleaf 'my whole personal estate with all my goods and chattels as also one negro man, one cow, three pigs with timber, plank, and boards."—Coffin, p. 337.
[319] New-England Weekly Journal, No. 267, May 1, 1732.
[320] A child one year and a half old—a nursing child sold from the bosom of its mother!—and for life!—Coffin, p. 337.
[321] Slavery in Mass., p. 96. Note.
[322] Eight years after this, on the 22d of June, 1735, Mr. Plant records in his diary: "I wrote Mr. Salmon of Barbadoes to send me a Negro." (Coffin, p. 338.) It doesn't appear that the reverend gentleman was opposed to slavery!
[323] Note quoted by Dr. Moore, p. 58.
[324] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 44.
[325] "For they tell the Negroes, that they must believe in Christ, and receive the Christian faith, and that they must receive the sacrament, and be baptized, and so they do; but still they keep them slaves for all this."—MACY'S Hist. of Nantucket, pp. 280, 281.
[326] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., p. 117.
[327] Mr. Palfrey relies upon a single reference in Winthrop for the historical trustworthiness of his statement that a Negro slave could be a member of the church. He thinks, however, that this "presents a curious question," and wisely reasons as follows: "As a church-member, he was eligible to the political franchise, and, if he should be actually invested with it, he would have a part in making laws to govern his master,—laws with which his master, if a non-communicant, would have had no concern except to obey them. But it is improbable that the Court would have made a slave—while a slave—a member of the Company, though he were a communicant.—Palfrey, vol. ii. p. 30. Note.
[328] Butts vs. Penny, 2 Lev., p. 201; 3 Kib., p. 785.
[329] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 426.
[330] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., p. 748.
[331] Palfrey, vol. ii. p. 30. Note.
[332] Hist. Mag., vol. v., 2d Series, by Dr. G.H. Moore.
[333] Slavery in Mass., p. 57, note.
[334] I use the term freeman, because the colony being under the English crown, there were no citizens. All were British subjects.
[335] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., p. 746.
[336] Ibid., p. 386.
[337] Mr. Palfrey is disposed to hang a very weighty matter on a very slender thread of authority. He says, "In the list of men capable of bearing arms, at Plymouth, in 1643, occurs the name of 'Abraham Pearse, the Black-moore,' from which we infer ... that Negroes were not dispensed from military service in that colony" (History of New England, vol. ii. p. 30, note). This single case is borne down by the laws and usages of the colonists on this subject. Negroes as a class were absolutely excluded from the military service, from the commencement of the colony down to the war with Great Britain.
[338] Slavery in Mass., Appendix, p. 243.
[339] Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. viii. 3d Series, p. 336.
[340] Lyman's Report, 1822.
[341] Mather's Magnalia, Book III., p. 207. Compare also p. 209.
[342] Elliott's New-England Hist., vol. ii. p. 165.
[343] Mr. Palfrey comes again with his single and exceptional case, asking us to infer a rule therefrom. See History of New England, note, p. 30.
[344] Chief-Justice Parker, in Andover vs. Canton, 13 Mass. p. 550.
[345] Slavery in Mass., p. 62.
[346] Mott's Sketches, p. 17.
[347] At the early age of sixteen, in the year 1770, Phillis was baptized into the membership of the society worshipping in the "Old South Meeting-House." The gifted, eloquent, and noble Dr. Sewall was the pastor. This was an exception to the rule, that slaves were not baptized into the Church.
[348] All writers I have seen on this subject—and I think I have seen all—leave the impression that Miss Wheatley's poems were first published in London. This is not true. The first published poems from her pen were issued in Boston in 1770. But it was a mere pamphlet edition, and has long since perished.
[349] All the historians but Sparks omit the given name of Peters. It was John.
[350] The date usually given for her death is 1780, while her age is fixed at twenty-six. The best authority gives the dates above, and I think they are correct.
[351] "Her correspondence was sought, and it extended to persons of distinction even in England, among whom may be named the Countess of Huntingdon, Whitefield, and the Earl of Dartmouth."—Sparks's Washington, vol. iii. p. 298, note.
[352] Sparks's Washington, vol iii. p. 299, note.
[353] This destroys the last hope I have nursed for nearly six years that the poem might yet come to light. Somehow I had overlooked this note.
[354] Sparks's Washington, vol iii. p. 288.
[355] Ibid., vol. iii. pp. 297, 298.
[356] Armistead's A Tribute to the Negro, pp. 460, 461.
[357] Douglass, vol. ii. p. 345, note.
[358] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 426.
[359] Pearce vs. Lisle, Ambler, 76.
[360] It may sound strangely in the ears of some friends and admirers of the gifted John Adams to hear now, after the lapse of many years, what he had to say of the position Otis took. His mild views on slavery were as deserving of scrutiny as those of the elder Quincy. Mr. Adams says: "Nor were the poor negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia, or Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, ever asserted the rights of negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was, and ignorant as I was, I shuddered at the doctrine he taught; and I have all my lifetime shuddered, and still shudder, at the consequences that may be drawn from such premises. Shall we say, that the rights of masters and servants clash, and can be decided only by force? I adore the idea of gradual abolitions! But who shall decide how fast or how slowly these abolitions shall be made?"
[361] Hildreth, vol. ii. pp. 564, 565.
[362] Coffin says, "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 council for the plaintiff, in whose favor the jury brought in their verdict and awarded him eighteen pounds' damages and costs, was John Lowell, Esq., 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."
[363] Hildreth, vol. ii, pp. 550, 551.
[364] Drake, p. 729, note.
[365] I use the English spelling,—Sommersett.
[366] Hildreth, vol. ii. p. 567.
[367] Bancroft, 12th ed. vol. iii. p. 412.
[368] Ancient Charters and Laws of Mass., pp. 745, 746.
[369] The following is from Felt's Salem, vol. ii. pp. 415, 416, and illustrates the manner in which the law was complied with: "1713. Ann, relict of Governor Bradstreet, frees Hannah, a negro servant. 1717, Dec. 21. William and Samuel Upton, of this town, liberate Thomas, who has faithfully served their father, John Upton, of Reading. They give security to the treasurer, that they will meet all charges, which may accrue against the said black man. 1721, May 27. Elizur Keyser does the same for his servant, Cato, after four years more, and then the latter was to receive two suits of clothes.... 1758, June 5. The heirs of John Turner, having freed two servants, Titus and Rebeckah, give bonds to the selectmen, that they shall be no public charge."
[370] John Adams's Works, vol. i. p. 51.
[371] Adams's Works, vol. i. p. 55.
[372] Drake, p. 525.
[373] The late Senator Sumner, in a speech delivered on the 28th of June, 1854, refers to this as "the earliest testimony from any official body against negro slavery." Even the weight of the senator's assertion cannot resist the facts of history. The "resolve" instructing the "representatives" was never carried; but, on the contrary, the next Act was the law of 1703 restricting manumission!
[374] Journal H. of R., 15, 16. General Court Records, x. 282.
[375] Slavery in Mass., p. 106.
[376] It was thought to be lost for some years, until Dr. George H. Moore secured a copy from George Brinley, Esq., of Hartford, Conn., and reproduced it in his Notes.
[377] History of Nantucket, p. 281.
[378] Coffin, p. 338; also History of Nantucket, pp. 279, 280.
[379] Coffin, p. 338.
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."