North Carolina, slaves constituted a third part or more of the population. In South Carolina, where rice was the principal produce, they were still more numerous, decidedly outnumbering the free inhabitants. (1750.)

The slave code of South Carolina, as revised and re-enacted in a statute still regarded as having the force of law, had dropped from its phraseology something of the extreme harshness of the former act. It contained, also, some provisions for the benefit of the slaves, but, on the whole, was harder than before. 'Whereas,' says the preamble to this act, (1740), in his majesty's plantations in America, slavery has been introduced and allowed, and the people commonly called negroes, Indians, mulattoes, and mestizoes have been deemed absolute slaves, and the subjects of property in the hands of particular persons, the extent of whose power over such slaves, ought to be settled and limited by positive laws, so that the slaves may be kept in due subjection and obedience, and the owners and other persons having the care and government of slaves, may be restrained from exercising too great rigor and cruelty over them, and that the public peace and order of this province may be preserved,' it is therefore enacted that all negroes, Indians mulattoes and mestizoes (free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes, and mestizoes who are now free, excepted), who now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their issue and offspring born and to be born, shall be, and they are hereby declared to be and remain forever hereafter absolute slaves, and shall follow the condition of the mother, and shall be claimed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels personal.' This provision, which deprives the master of the power of manumission, and subjects to slavery the descendant of every slave woman, no matter how many degrees removed, nor who may have been the male ancestor, nor what color, was subsequently adopted in the same terms, by the Georgia Legislature, as the law of that province. A suit for freedom might be brought by any white man who chose to volunteer for that purpose on behalf of any person claimed as a slave. But, in all such suits, the burden of proof shall lie upon the plaintiff, and it shall always be presumed that every negro, Indian, mulatto, and mestizo is a slave unless the contrary can be made to appear, the Indians

in amity with this government excepted, in which case the burden of proof shall lie on the defendant.' Masters were forbidden to allow their slaves to hire their own time; to let or hire any plantation; to possess any vessel or boat; to keep or raise any horses, cattle, or hogs; to engage in any sort of trade on their own account; to be taught to write; or to have or wear any apparel (except livery servants) finer than negro cloth, duffils, kerseys, osnabergs, blue linen, check linen, or coarse garlix or calicoes, checked cotton or Scotch plaid; and any constable seeing any negro better clad, might seize the clothes and appropriate them to his own use. It was forbidden to work slaves on Sundays, under a penalty of five pounds; for working them more than fifteen hours daily in summer, and fourteen in winter, a like penalty was imposed. Upon complaint to any justice that any master does not provide his slaves with sufficient 'clothing, covering, or food,' the justice might make such order in the premises as he saw fit, and fine the master not exceeding twenty pounds. And whereas cruelty is not only highly unbecoming those who profess themselves Christians, but odious in the eyes of all men who have any sense of virtue and humanity,' the fine for the willful murder of a slave was increased to £700 currency, with incapacity to hold any office, civil or military, and in case of inability to pay the fine, seven years' labor in a frontier garrison or the Charleston workhouse. For killing a slave in the heat of passion, for maiming, or inflicting any other cruel punishment 'other than by whipping or beating with a horsewhip, cowskin, switch, or small stick, or by putting in irons or imprisonment,' a fine of £320 was imposed; and in case of slaves found dead, maimed, or otherwise cruelly punished, the masters were to be held guilty of the act unless they make the contrary appear. (1750.)

No statute of North Carolina seems ever to have been de clared who were or might be held as slaves in that province, the whole system being left to rest on usage, or the supposed law of England. But police laws for the regulation of slaves were enacted similar to those of Virginia, and the Virginia prohibition was also adopted of manumissions, except for meritorious services, to be adjudged by the governor and council. (1741.)

Among the ten acts of the late Virginia revision rejected by the king, was one (1751) concerning servants and slaves,' a consolidation and re-enactment of all the old statutes on that subject, the substance of which has been given in former chapters. It appears from the address, already quoted, of the Assembly to the king (1752) on the subject of this veto, to have been a standing instruction to the governor not to consent to the re-enactment of any law once rejected by the king, without express leave first obtained upon representation of the reasons and necessity for it. Such a representation was accordingly made by the Assembly as to eight of the ten rejected laws. The act concerning servants and slaves was not of this number (1753), yet we find it re-enacted, within a year after, in the very same words. Why the royal assent had been refused does not appear. It could hardly have been from any scruples on the subject of slavery (1750); for among the acts expressly approved was one for the better government of Indians, negroes and mulattoes,' which provided that the death of a slave under extremity of correction should not be esteemed murder, unless it were proved by the oath of at least one lawful and credible witness' that the slave was willfully and maliciously killed; persons indicted for the murder of a slave, and found guilty of manslaughter only, toincur no forfeiture or punishment.' Slaves set free without leave from the governor and council, might be sold at public auction by the churchwardens of any parish in which such freed slave might reside for the space of a month. The same statute also continued the authority formerly given to the county courts to 'dismember' disorderly slaves notoriously guilty of going abroad in the night, or running away and lying out,' and not to be reclaimed by the common methods-an authority very much abused, if we may judge by a subsequent statute, which declares this dismembering to be often disproportioned to the offense, and contrary to the principles of humanity,' and prohibits the castration of slaves except on conviction of an attempt to ravish a white woman. (1769.)

The negroes imported from the African coast, whose descendants now constitute a sixth part of the population of the United States, were not by any means of one nation, language, or race. A single slave ship often brought to America a

great variety of languages and customs, a collection of unfortunate strangers to each other, or perhaps of hereditary enemies, with no common bond except that of servitude. Hence a want of union and sympathy among the slaves, which, joined to their extreme ignorance and simplicity, pre vented co-operation, and rendered it easy to suppress such outbreaks as occasionally occurred. (1750.) Even in complexion and physiognomy, the most obvious characteristic of the negroes, there were great differences. Some were of a jet black, often with features approaching the European standard; others of a mahogany or reddish black, with features less shapely and regular; and others yet of a tawny yellow, with flat noses and projecting jaws-an ugliness often, but erroneously, esteemed characteristic of all the African races, but which seems to have been principally confined to the low and swampy grounds about the Delta of the Niger. The negroes marked by these shapeless features were noted also for indomitable capacity of endurance, and were esteemed, therefore, the best slaves. Intermixture among themselves, and a large infusion of European blood, have gradually obliterated these differences, or made them less noticeable.

Contrary to what happened in the West Indies, in the Anglo-North American provinces the natural increase of the slave population was rapid. The women were seldom put to the severer labors of the field. The long winter secured to both sexes a season of comparative rest. Such was the abundance of provisions, that it was cheaper to breed than to buy slaves. Those born in America, and reared up on the plantations, evidently surpassed the imported Africans both physically and intellectually. Of the imported slaves a few were Mohammedans, among whom were occasionally found persons of some education, who knew Arabic, and could read the Koran. But the great mass were pagans, in a condition of gross barbarism. They brought with them from Africa many superstitions, but these, for the most part, as well as the negro languages, very soon died out.

Zealous for religion as the colonists were, very little effort was made to convert the negroes, owing partly, at least, to a prevalent opinion that neither Christian brotherhood nor the law of England would justify the holding Christians as slaves. Nor could repeated colonial enactments to the contrary

entirely root out this idea, for it was not supposed that a colonial statute could set aside the law of England. What, precisely, the English law might be on the subject of slavery, still remained a matter of doubt. Lord Holt had expressed the opinion, as quoted in a previous chapter, that slavery was a condition unknown to English law, and that every person setting foot in England thereby became free. American planters, on their visits to England, accompanied by their slaves, seem to have been annoyed by claims of freedom set up on this ground, and that, also, of baptism. To relieve their embarrassments, the merchants concerned in the American trade had obtained a written opinion from Yorke and Talbot, the attorney and solicitor-general of that day. (1729.) According to this opinion, which passed for more than forty years as good law, not only was baptism no bar to slavery. but negro slaves might be held in England just as well as in the colonies. The two lawyers by whom this opinion was given, rose afterward, one of them to be chief justice of England, and both to be chancellors. Yorke, sitting in the latter capacity with the title of Lord Hardwicke (1749), had recently recognized the doctrine of that opinion as sound law. (Pearce vs. Lisle, Ambler, 76.) He objects to Lord Holt's doctrine of freedom, secured by setting foot on English soil, that no reason could be found 'why slaves should not be equally free when they set foot in Jamaica or any other English plantation.' All our colonies are subject to the laws of England, although, as to some purposes, they have laws of their own.' His argument is, that if slavery be contrary to English law, no local enactments in the colonies could give it any validity. To avoid overturning slavery in the colonies, it was absolutely necessary to uphold it in England. At a subsequent period, as we shall presently see, the law of England was definitively settled in favor of liberty, the extra-judicial opinion of Talbot and Hardwicke being set aside by a solemn decision of the King's Bench. (1750.)

6

The remaining exclusive privileges of the Royal African Company having expired, the English government undertook to maintain, at their own expense, the forts and factories on the African coast; and thus the slave trade was thrown open to free competition. The recent introduction of the cultivation