known dissolute, lewd, and disorderly person, of whom there is just cause of suspicion," and such persons to be punished by whipping for so trading.

17031, Laws of, c. 2.-An act restraining the emancipation of "molatto or negro slaves," without giving security to the town that they should not become chargeable. c. 4. An act that Indians, mulattoes, and negroes shall not be abroad at night after nine o'clock, &c.-Charters, &c., p. 745, 746.

1705, Laws of, c. 6.-Act for the better preventing of a spurious and mixt issue. Enacts that a negro or molatto man committing fornication with "an English woman, or a woman of any other Christian nation," shall be sold out of the province. An "English man, or man of any other Christian nation," committing fornication with a negro or molatto woman, to be whipped, and the woman sold out of the province. "Any negro or mulatto presuming to smite or strike an English person, or of other Christian nation," to "be severely whipped." None of her Majesty's English or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation within this province, "shall contract matrimony with any negro or mulatto," under a penalty imposed on the person joining them in marriage. "No master shall unreasonably deny marriage to his negro with one of the same nation; any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding." All negroes imported are to be entered and duty paid, a drawback to be allowed on exportation.-Charters, &c., p. 747.

1707, Laws of, c. 2.-An act for the regulating of free negroes, &c., enacts that they do service "in repairing the high

In 1701, the town of Boston instructed its representatives "to put a period to negroes being slaves."-3 Banc. 408.

:

In a treatise by C. C. Jones, on the Religious Instruction of the negroes in the U. S. Savannah, 1842, p. 35, are extracts from "Entryes for Publications (of marriage) within the town of Boston," date, 1707, 1710, publications of negroes, all as of certain masters there named."

Winchendon v. Hatfield (1808), 4 Mass. R. 127-8, Parsons, C. J. "Slavery was introduced into this country soon after its first settlement. The slave was the property of the master, subject to his orders, and to reasonable correction for misbehavior. If the master was guilty of a cruel or unreasonable castigation of his slave, he was liable to be punished for the breach of the peace, and, I believe, the slave was allowed to demand sureties of the peace against a violent and barbarous master. Under these regulations, the treatment of slaves was in general mild and humane, and they suffered hardships not greater than hired servants."

ways, cleansing the streets, or other service for the common benefit of the place," equivalent to the service of others in training. In case of alarms, that they shall attend on parade and do services at the direction of the commanding officer. That free negroes and mulatto shall be fined for harbouring or entertaining "any negro or mulatto servant," without consent, &c. Punishment is prescribed, by commitment to the House of Correction.1

Between the years 1767 and 1773, several unsuccessful attempts were made to procure legislative acts against the slave trade, an account of which is given by Dr. Belknap in his letter to Judge Tucker, vol. iv. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. p. 201. The latest attempts appear to have failed from the opposition of the governor, acting under his instructions. Dr. Belknap adds, “The blacks had better success in the judicial courts. A pamphlet containing the case of a negro who had accompanied his master from the West Indies to England, and had there sued for and obtained his freedom, was reprinted here, and this encouraged several negroes to sue their masters for their freedom and for recompense, for their service after they had attained the age of twenty-one years. The first trial of this kind was in 1770. The negroes collected money among themselves to carry on the suit, and it terminated favorably for them. Other suits were instituted between that time and the revolution, and the juries invariably gave their verdict in favor of liberty. 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 recognised slavery as existing in it, by declaring that no person should manumit his slave without giving bond for his maintenance, &c. 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 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 the children.

"During the revolution-war, the publick opinion was so strongly in favor of the abolition of slavery, that in some of the country towns votes were passed in townmeetings, that they would have no slaves among them, and that they would not exact of masters any bonds for the maintenance of liberated blacks, if they should become incapable of supporting themselves."

In a paper by Emory Washburn, Esq., read before the Mass. Hist. Soc. April, 1857, (Boston Daily Advertiser, July 8, 1857,) the title of the case above mentioned is given as James v. Lechmere. "The term at which the judgment in this action was rendered, was held in Suffolk, Oct. 31, 1769. The action was commenced in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas, May 2, 1769, and the plaintiff declared in trespass for assault and battery, and imprisoning and holding the plaintiff in servitude from April 11, 1758, to the date of the writ. Judgment in the lower court was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, and in the superior court the defendant was defaulted, and judgment was rendered for an agreed sum with costs." Mr. Washburn says also; "If this were the place for speculation, I should feel myself warranted in assuming that our courts, as early as 1770, considered the attempt to hold any person not captured and brought and sold here, but born here, as a slave, was not justified by law, although he might be the child of a slave." But in Winchendon v. Hatfield, 4 Mass. R. 129, the court says: "It is very certain that the general practice and common usage had been opposed to the opinion that a negro born in the State, before the present constitution, was free, though born of a female slave." And see Journals of Mass. Provincial Congress, pp. 29, 302, a resolution of the Mass. Committee of Safety, of May 20, 1775, respecting the impropriety of enlisting slaves in the army; read in the congress, June 8, but no action taken on it.

1712, Laws of, c. 6.—An act prohibiting the importation or bringing into this province any Indian servants or slaves. The preamble recites the bad character of "Indians and other slaves," the danger of their increase, and the "discouragement to the importation of white Christian servants;" enacts "that all Indians, male and female, of whatever age soever, imported or brought into this province by sea or land from any part or place whatsoever," shall be forfeited to her majesty for the support of government, unless importers give security to remove them.-Charters, &c., p. 748.

§ 221. LEGISLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

The colonial government of Massachusetts had claimed and exercised jurisdiction over the settlements within the limits of the present State of New Hampshire until the year 1679, when a separate provincial government was constituted under the royal commission.' The first legislative assembly declared "the general laws and liberties of this province," and a code of capital laws compiled from the Massachusetts code; of which the twelfth is, "if any man stealeth mankind he shall be put to death or otherwise grievously punished."--1 Belknap's Hist. N. H. app. no. 26. This code "was rejected in England as 'fanatical and absurd.'"-1 Hildr. p. 501.2

'The claim to the soil-antagonistical to that of Massachusetts-was founded on Mason's Patent from the council of Plymouth, England. Whatever legislative power was derived from it was restructed by the usual condition of conformity to the laws of England. Local governments, founded on the written compacts of the settlers, had been formed at Exeter and Dover. 1 Belknap's N. H. app. no. 12, 13. By the commission to Cutts and others, 1679, a legislative Assembly was allowed; the voters for delegates to be determined by the President and Council, and when "writs were issued for calling a general Assembly, the persons in each town who were judged qualified to vote were named in the writs," 1 Belknap's Hist. N. H. p. 91. The legislative power was not expressly limited, though subject to the royal disallowance of its enactments. It was provided in the grant of judicial power-"so always that the form of proceedings in such cases and the judgments thereupon to be given be as consonant and agreeable to the laws and statutes of this our realm of England, as the present state and condition of our subjects inhabiting within the limits aforesaid, and the circumstances of the place will admit." The later commissions provide that the looal shall not be repugnant, but, as near as may be, agreeable to the laws and statutes of this our realm of England." By the commission to Wentworth, 1766, the deputies to the Assembly are to be chosen by the "major part of the freeholders.' See the commissions in N. Hamp. Prov. Laws, edit. 1771, Story's Comm. §§ 78-81.

2 In a journal given in Belknap's Hist. N. H. app. no. 44, as of 1683, "March 14.

1714, were passed--An act for preventing men's sons or servants absenting themselves from their parents or master's service without leave. N. H. Prov. Laws, c. 28. An act to prevent disorders in the night, Prov. Laws, c. 39.—“ Whereas great disorders, insolencies and burglaries are ofttimes raised and committed in the night time by Indian negro and molatto servants and slaves, to the disquiet and hurt of her Majesty's good subjects; for the prevention whereof Be it, &c.--that no Indian, negro or molatto servant or slave may presume to be absent from the families where they respectively belong, or be found abroad in the night time after nine o'clock; unless it be upon errand for their respective masters," &c.

An act prohibiting the importation or bringing into this Province any Indian servant or slaves. Prov. L. c. 41"Whereas divers conspiracies, outrages, barbarities, murders, burglaries, thefts, and other notorious crimes and enormities, at sundry times have of late been perpetrated and committed by Indians and other slaves within several of her Majesty's plantations in America, being of a malicious, surly, and revengeful spirit and very ungovernable, the over great number and increase whereof within this province is likely to prove of fatal and pernicious consequence to her Majesty's subjects and interest here, unless speedily remedied, and is a discouragement to the importation of Christian servants: Be it, &c., that from and after the publication of this act, all Indians, male and female, of what age soever, that shall be imported or brought into this province by sea or land; every master of ship or other vessel, merchant or person, importing or bringing into this province such Indians male or female, shall forfeit to her Majesty for the support of the government, the sum of ten pounds per head, to be sued for and recovered in any of her Majesty's courts

The governor told Mr. Jaffrey's negro he might go from his master, he would clear him under his hand and seal; so the fellow no more attends his master's concerns.'

The royal instructions dated June 30, 1761, to B. Wentworth, the Provincial Governor, contained a clause,-"You are not to give your assent to, or pass any law imposing duties on negroes imported into New Hampshire." Gordon's Hist. of Am. Rev. vol. V., letter 2.

of record, by action, bill, complaint or otherwise: to be paid into the treasury for the use aforesaid."

1718. Act for restraining inhuman severities. Prov. L. c. 70, 8. 1-" For the prevention and restraining of inhuman severities which by evil masters or overseers, may be used towards their Christian servants, that from and after the publication hereof, if any man smite out the eye or tooth of his man servant or maid servant, or otherwise maim or disfigure them much, unless it be by mere casualty, he shall let him or her go free from his service, and shall allow such further recompense as the court of quarter sessions shall adjudge him. 2. That if any person or persons whatever in this province shall wilfully kill his Indian or negro servant or servants he shall be punished with death."

§ 222. LEGISLATION OF CONNECTICUT.

The civil polity of this colony originated in that of the two several colonies of Hartford and of New Haven. In January, 1639, a constitution of government was adopted for the Hartford colony, by those who mutually recognized each other as the adult male free inhabitants of the settlements or townships of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield, agreeing "in all civil affairs to be governed according to such laws as should be made agreeably to the constitution they were then about to adopt,"

1 1775, Nov. 3. Resolution of Congress recommending the revolutionary Convention at Exeter (representing one hundred and two towns) to call "a full and free representation of the people," and that these representatives may establish such form of gov ernment, &c. 1 Belknap's N. H. pp. 357, 359, 361,-2. 1776, Jan. 5, vote of the Convention at Exeter, "that this Congress take up civil government for this colony, in the manner and form following," &c., Laws, 1780. Coll. N. H. Hist. Sec. IV., p. 150. There is no declaration of private rights.

1776, June 15.

The Council and Assembly declared New Hampshire an independent State. 1 Bel. p. 367.

'The origin of the local government and the progress of legislation in Connecticut is sketched in the advertisement to the Public Statute Laws of the State of Conn., publ. Hartford, 1808. The towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield were first settled by emigrants from Massachusetts, the general court having in the year 1636 issued to Roger Ludlow and others, a commission investing them with legislative and judicial powers for one year in the new plantations, (intended to be within the limits and jurisdiction of Massachusetts,) and authorizing them to convene the inhabitants, if necessary, to exercise these powers in General Court. This commission was never renewed, but the persons named therein acted as magistrates until January, 1639. See also records of the colony, published by the State, 1850. Compare the remark in note 2, page 121.