upon, the head of the family that entertaineth or tolerates them in his or their house, or any the dependencies thereof, and being convicted thereof before any one assistant or justice of the peace, who shall have power to hear and determine the same, shall forfeit the sum of twenty shillings, one-half to the complainer and the other half to the treasury of the town where the offence is committed; any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. And that it shall be the duty of the several grand-jurors and constables and tything-men, to make diligent enquiry into and present of all breaches of this act."

The laws regulating slavery in the colony of Connecticut, up to this time, had stood, and been faithfully enforced. There had been a few infractions of the law, but the guilty had been punished. And in addition to statutory regulation of slaves, the refractory ones were often summoned to the bar of public opinion and dealt with summarily. Individual owners of slaves felt themselves at liberty to use the utmost discretion in dealing with this species of their property. So on every hand the slave found himself scrutinized, suspicioned, feared, hated, and hounded by the entire community of whites who were by law a perpetual posse comitatus. The result of too great vigilance and severe censorship was positive and alarming. It made the slave desperate. It intoxicated him with a malice that would brook no restraint. It is said that the use of vigorous adjectives and strong English is a relief to one in moments of trial. But even this was denied the oppressed slaves in Connecticut; for in May, 1730, a bill was passed punishing them for using strong language.

"AN ACT FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF NEGROES, INDIAN AND MOLATTO SLAVES, FOR SPEAKING DEFAMATORY WORDS.

"Be it enacted by the Governour, Council and Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if any Negro, Indian or Molatto slave shall utter, publish and speak such words of any person that would by law be actionable if the same were uttered, published or spoken by any free person of any other, such Negro, Indian or Molatto slave, being thereof convicted before any one assistant or justice of the peace, (who are hereby impowred to hear and determine the same,) shall be punished by whipping, at the discretion of the assistant or justice before whom the tryal is, (respect being had to the circumstances of the case,) not exceeding forty stripes. And the said slave, so convict, shall be sold to defray all charges arising thereby, unless the same be by his or their master or mistress paid and answered, &c." 2

The above act is the most remarkable document in this period of its kind. And yet there are two noticeable features in it: viz,

Conn. Col. Recs., 1717-25, pp. 390, 391.

2 Ibid., 1726-35, p. 290.

the slave is to be proceeded against the same as if he were a free person; and he was to be entitled to offer evidence, enter his plea, and otherwise defend himself against the charge. This was more than was allowed in any of the other colonies.

On the 9th of September, 1730, Gov. J. Talcott, in a letter to the " Board of Trade," said that there were "about 700 Indian and Negro slaves" in the colony. The most of these were Negroslaves. For on the 8th of July, 1715, a proclamation was issued by the governor against the importation of Indians; and on the 13th of October, 1715, a bill was passed "prohibiting the Importation or bringing into" the colony any Indian slaves. It was an exact copy of the Act of May, 1712, passed in the colony of Massachusetts.

In

The colony of Connecticut never established slavery by direct statute; but in adopting a code which was ordered by the General Court of Hartford to be "copied by the secretary into the book of public records," it gave the institution legal sanction. This code was signed on the 5th of September, 1646. It recognized the lawfulness of Indian and Negro slavery. This was done under the confederacy of the "United Colonies of New England." 2 For some reason the part of the code recognizing slavery is omitted from the revised laws of 1715. In this colony, as in Massachusetts, only members of the church, "and living within the jurisdiction," could be admitted to the rights of freemen. 1715 an Act was passed requiring persons who desired to become "freemen of this corporation," to secure a certificate from the selectmen that they were persons of quiet and peaceable behavior and civil conversation, of the age of twenty-one years, and freeholders." This provision excluded all free Negroes. It was impossible for one to secure such a certificate. Public sentiment alone would have frowned upon such an innovation upon the customs and manners of the Puritans. On the 17th of May, 1660, the following Act was passed: "It is ordered by this court, that neither Indian nor negar servts shall be required to traine, watch or ward in the Collo: "3

To determine the status of the Negro here, this Act was necessary. He might be free, own his own labor; but if the law excluded him from the periodical musters and trainings, from the

1 Conn. Col. Recs., 1706-16, pp. 515, 516. 2 Hazard, State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 1-6. 3 Conn. Col. Recs., vol. i. p. 349.

church and civil duties, his freedom was a mere misnomer. It is difficult to define the rights of a free Negro in this colony. He was restricted in his relations with the slaves, and in his intercourse with white people was regarded with suspicion. If he had, in point of law, the right to purchase property, the general prejudice that confronted him on every hand made his warmest friends judiciously conservative. There were no provisions made for his intellectual or spiritual growth. He was regarded by both the religious and civil government, under which he lived, as a heathen. Even his accidental conversion could not change his condition, nor mollify the feelings of the white Christians (?) about him. Like the wild animal, he was possessed with the barest privilege of getting something to eat. Beyond this he had nothing. Everywhere he turned, he felt the withering glance of a suspicious people. Prejudice and proscriptive legislation cast their dark shadows on his daily path; and the conscious superiority of the whites consigned him to the severest drudgery for his daily bread. The recollection of the past was distressing, the trials and burdens of the present were almost unbearable, while the future was one shapeless horror to him.

Perhaps the lowly and submissive acquiescence of the Negroes, bond and free, had a salutary effect upon the public mind. There is something awfully grand in an heroic endurance of undeserved pain. The white Christians married, and were given in marriage; they sowed and gathered rich harvests; they bought and built happy homes; beautiful children were born unto them; they built magnificent churches, and worshipped the true God: the present was joyous, and the future peopled with sublime anticipation. The contrast of these two peoples in their wide-apart conditions must have made men reflective. And added to this came the loud thunders of the Revolution. Connecticut had her orators, and they touched the public heart with the glowing coals of patriotic resolve. They felt the insecurity of their own liberties, and were now willing to pronounce in favor of the liberty of the Negroes. The inconsistency of asking for freedom, praying for freedom, fighting for freedom, and dying for freedom, when they themselves held thousands of human beings in bondage the most cruel the world ever knew, helped the cause of the slave. In 1762 the Negro population of this colony was four thousand five hundred and ninety.'

I Pres. Stiles's MSS.

Public sentiment was aroused on the slavery question; and in October, 1774, the following prohibition was directed at slavery:

"Act against importation of slaves—“No Indian, negro, or mulatto slave shall at any time hereafter be brought or imported into this State, by sea or land, from any place or places whatsoever, to be disposed of, left or sold, within this State." I

The above bill was brief, but pointed; and showed that Connecticut was the only one of the New-England colonies that had the honesty and courage to legislate against slavery. And the patriotism and incomparable valor of the Negro soldiers of Connecticut, who proudly followed the Continental flag through the fires of the Revolutionary War, proved that they were worthy of the humane sentiment that demanded the Act of 1774.

1 Freedom and Bondage, vol. i. pp. 272, 273.

CHAPTER XIX.

THE COLONY OF RHODE ISLAND.

1647-1775.

COLONIAL GOVERNMENT IN RHODE ISLAND, MAY, 1647. — AN ACT PASSED TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN 1652, BUT WAS NEVER ENFORCED. - AN ACT SPECIFYING WHAT TIMES INDIAN AND NEGRO SLAVES SHOULD NOT APPEAR IN THE STREETs. — An Impost-Tax on Slaves (1708). - Penalties imposed ON DISOBEDIENT SLAVES. ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENT IN THE COLONIES RECEIVES LITTLE ENCOURAGEMENT.— - CIRCULAR LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF TRADE TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE ENGLISH COLONIES RELATIVE TO NEGRO SLAVES. GOVERNOR CRANSTON'S REPLY. LIst of MILITIA-MEN, INCLUDING WHITE AND BLACK SERVANTS. ANOTHER LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF TRADE. AN ACT PREVENTING CLANDESTINE IMPORTATIONS AND EXPORTATIONS OF PASsengers, NegrOES, OR INDIAN Slaves. — Masters of Vessels required to report the NaMES AND NUMBER OF PASSENGERS TO THE GOVERNOR. — VIOLATION OF THE IMPOST-TAX LAW ON SLAVES PUNISHED BY SEVERE PENALTIES. - APPROPRIATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, JULY 5, 1715, FROM THE FUND DERIVED FROM THE IMPOST-TAX, FOR THE PAVING OF THE STREETS OF NEWPORT. - AN ACT PASSED DISPOSING OF THE MONEY RAISED BY IMPOST-TAX. — IMPOst-Law REPEALED, MAY, 1732.-AN ACT RELATING TO FREEING MULATTO AND NEGRO SLAVES PASSED 1728. - AN ACT PASSED PREVenting MastERS OF VESSELS FROM CARRYING SLAVES OUT OF THE COLONY, JUNE 17, 1757. - EVE OF THE REVOLUTION. — AN ACT PROHIBITING IMPORTATION OF NEGROES INTO THE COLONY IN 1774. THE POPULATION OF RHODE ISLAND IN 1730 AND 1774.

INDO

NDIVIDUAL Negroes were held in bondage in Rhode Island from the time of the formation of the colonial government there, in May, 1647, down to the close of the eighteenth century. Like her sister colonies, she early took the poison of the slave-traffic into her commercial life, and found it a most difficult political task to rid herself of it. The institution of slavery was never established by statute in this colony; but it was so firmly rooted five years after the establishment of the government, that it required the positive and explicit prohibition of law to destroy it. On the 19th of May, 1652, the General Court passed the following Act against slavery. It is the earliest positive prohibition against slavery in the records of modern nations.

"Whereas, there is a common course practiced amongst English men to buy negers, to that end they may have them for service or slaves forever; for the preventinge of such practices among us, let it be ordered, that no blacke mankind or white being forced by covenant bond, or otherwise, to serve any man or his assighnes longer than ten yeares, or until they come to bee twentie