of causing to be prepared the meals of their slaves, be, and they are hereby authorized to abridge, by half an hour per day, the time fixed for their rest." 1 Martin's Digest, 610-12.

See

The remarks which were made, in relation to the laws of Georgia, bear with equal force upon those of South Carolina and Louisiana, above cited. They are wholly inoperative-incapable of being executed-and must, without doubt, give way to the cupidity of the master, whenever circumstances excite the passion for gain. But to speak of the law of South Carolina -suppose it to be religiously observed, is not the measure as to the length of time (for as regards the kind or degree of labour no regulation exists, and it would be futile to make any) excessive, and likely to be destructive to bodily energy? In a matter of this nature, exact graduation is not easily attainable; yet, judging from such data as I have been able to collect, I think myself authorized in the conclusion that too much is permitted. In the island of Jamaica, besides many holidays which are by law accorded to the slave, ten hours a day is the extent of the time which the slave is compelled ordinarily to work. 2 Edward's West Indies, book 4, chap. 5. Also, Consolidated Slave Act of Jamaica, ibid. book 4; Appendix, section 18. The regulations of penitentiaries, in reference to the employment of convicts at hard labour, furnish additional criteria deserving of our attention. And, happily, it is in my power here to adduce the authority of at least three slave-holding states, viz. Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia, in conjunction with that of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In each of these states this law has been adopted: "Such offenders (convicts) unless prevented by ill health, shall be employed in work every day in the year except Sundays, and such days when they shall be confined in the solitary cells; and the hours of work, in each day, shall be as many, as the season of the year, with an interval of half an hour for breakfast and an hour for dinner, will permit; but not exceeding eight hours in the months of November, December and January; nine hours in the months of February and October; and ten hours in the rest of the year. 1 Virg. Rev. Code, 624; Prince's Digest, 382; Laws of Maryland, Nov. Sess. 1809, ch. 138, §30; Laws of New Jersey, revised and published

in 1821, page 326; Purdon's Digest of the Laws of Pennsyl vania, page 324 (act of April 5, 1790.)

Hence it appears, that according to a statute which was enacted upon the most solemn deliberation by one legislature, and which has been adopted since by four other distinct bodies of the same nature, ten hours make up the longest space out of twenty-four hours, which can be demanded for labour from convicted felons, whose PUNISHMENT was designed to consist chiefly of HARD LABOUR. Yet the slave of South Carolina, under a law professing to extend humanity towards him, may be subjected to unremitting toil for FIFTEEN HOURS within the same period!!

If we turn to Louisiana, the condition of the slave, in this particular, will be found without melioration. For though the purpose of the act which I have transcribed, is declared to be to ascertain what hours are to be assigned to the slave for work and REST, the only rest which it provides is half an hour at breakfast and two hours for dinner. At what time a third meal is to be taken, whether at sunset or at midnight, is left to the master's pleasure. And judging from our knowledge of the mode in which sugar is made, and cotton raised and pressed, it is not too much to say, that the going down of the sun is by no means the signal of repose to the weary slave.* And let it not be forgotten, that the slave within the short time allotted for rest, is under the necessity of preparing food for his meals!!

Prop. II. THE MASTER MAY SUPPLY THE SLAVE WITH SUCH

FOOD AND CLOTHING ONLY, BOTH AS TO QUANTITY AND QUALITY, AS HE MAY THINK PRoper or find CONVENIENT.

* An extract from a Louisiana newspaper, dated New Orleans, March 23, 1826, will tend in some measure to confirm this remark. The words are these: “To judge from the activity reigning in the cotton presses of the suburbs of St. Mary, and the late hours during which their slaves work, the cotton trade was never more brisk." Sugar making is, I believe, generally more laborious than the cultivation of cotton. In an article on the agriculture of Louisiana, contained in "The Western Review," No. 2, (the editor of which is by no means unfavourable to slavery,) the following statement appears: "The work (sugar making) is admitted to be severe for the hands, (slaves) requiring, when the process of making sugar is commenced, TO BE PRESSED NIGHT AND DAY."

Legislation, having a direct reference to the subject of this proposition, may be quoted from the codes of Louisiana and of North and South Carolina. Still, as the slave is entirely under the control of his master-is unprovided with a protector-and especially as he cannot be a witness, or make complaint in any known mode against his master, the apparent object of these laws may always be defeated. I might, therefore, spare myself any further attention to this proposition. But, for the information of those who have not resided in a slave state, I think fit to copy the authentic testimony of acts of assembly, as to the quantity and quality of food which are directed to be provided for slaves. Thus in Louisiana, "Every owner shall be held to give to his slaves the quantity of provisions hereafter specified, to wit: one barrel of Indian corn, or the equivalent thereof in rice, beans or other grain, and a pint of salt, and to deliver the same to the said slaves in kind every month, and never in money, under a penalty of a fine of ten dollars for every offence." 1 Martin's Digest, 610, act of July 7, 1806. In North Carolina, a much less quantity of the same kind of food is deemed sufficient, as is implied from the following curious section of an act passed in 1753, and which is still in force: "In case any slave or slaves, who shall not appear to have been clothed and fed according to the intent and meaning of this act, that is to say, to have been sufficiently clothed, and to have constantly received for the preceding year an allowance not less than a quart of corn per day, shall be convicted of stealing any corn, cattle, &c. &c. from any person not the owner of such slave or slaves, such injured person shall and may maintain an action of trespass against the master, owner or possessor of such slave, &c. and shall recover his or her damages, &c." Haywood's Manual, 524-5.

The allowance of clothing in Louisiana, seems to have been graduated by the same standard by which the quantity of food was determined in North Carolina. "The slave who shall not have on the property of their owners a lot of ground to cultivate on their own account, shall be entitled to receive from said owner one linen shirt and pantaloons (une chemise et une culotte de toile) for the summer, and a linen shirt and woollen great coat and pantaloons for the winter." 1 Martin's Digest, 610.

The other slave-holding states do not pretend to fix the kind and quantity of food and clothing to be furnished to the slave; but in South Carolina and in Georgia, the cruelty of denying to him a sufficiency of either, is attempted to be guarded against. That full justice may be done to the humanity of the lawgivers of South Carolina, I extract a section of the law which professes to give redress to the injured slave: "In case any person, &c. who shall be owner, or who shall have the care, government or charge of any slave or slaves, shall deny, neglect or refuse to allow such slave or slaves under his or her charge sufficient clothing, covering or food, it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons, on behalf of such slave or slaves, to make complaint to the next neighbouring justice in the parish where such slave or slaves live, or are usually employed; and the said justice shall summons the party against whom such complaint shall be made, and shall inquire of, hear and determine the same; and, if the said justice shall find the said complaint to be true, or that such person will not exculpate or clear himself from the charge, by his or her own oath, which such person shall be at liberty to do in all cases where positive proof is not given of the offence, such justice shall and may make such orders upon the same, for the relief of such slave or slaves, as he in his discretion shall think fit; and shall and may set and impose a fine or penalty on any person who shall offend in the premises, in any sum not exceeding twenty pounds, current money, for each offence, to be levied by warrant of distress and sale of the offender's goods," &c. &c. 2 Brevard's Dig. 241; similar in Louisiana, 1 Martin's Dig. 638-40.

Now, as the slave cannot be heard as a witness, it is not very easy to see how positive proof as to the insufficiency of food can be obtained; and, of course, by the terms of the act, the master or overseer, by his oath, may exculpate himself-may answer the general charge by as general a denial-a matter which an intrepid conscience, as all experience testifies, will easily compass.

The act of Georgia remains to be considered. It will be seen, by recurring to the latter section of the law of this state, upon which I adventured a brief comment while speaking of the first

proposition of this chapter, that among the constituents of the crime of cruelty by the master to his slave, are enumerated, "the withholding proper food and sustenance," and "not affording proper clothing." For "withholding proper food and sustenance," it has been demonstrated, I trust, that the master is dispunishable. The proof cannot be had. Whether the slave be properly clothed may, however, be ascertained by inspection. But here it is necessary to advert to a remark already made, namely, that the crime of cruelty, according to the legal interpretation of the section, requires the co-existence of all the illegal circumstances specified in the act. It is not enough that "proper clothing is not afforded"—proper food must be withheld-excessive labour must be exacted-unnecessary. and excessive whipping must be inflicted; and from all these concomitant causes, an effect is to be produced and proved, "whereby," such is the language of the act, "the health of such slave or slaves may be injured and impaired!!"

Upon the topics of this proposition, another act of Georgia may be cited, the provisions of which are of a character so novel, that I shall be under the necessity of detaining the reader longer in its discussion than is altogether consistent with the plan of this sketch. The act is a brief one, and I transcribe it entire: "Section 1. From and after the passing of this act, (December 12, 1815,) it shall be the duty of the inferior courts of the several counties in this state, on receiving information, on oath, of any infirm slave or slaves being in a suffering situation, from the neglect of the owner or owners of such slave or slaves, to make particular inquiries into the situation of such slave or slaves, and render such relief as they in their discretion may think proper.

"Section 2. The said courts may, and they are hereby authorized, to sue for and recover from the owner or owners of such slave or slaves, the amount that may be appropriated for the relief of such slave or slaves, in any court having jurisdiction of the same; any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding." Prince's Digest, 460.

By the terms of this act, the relief spoken of is confined to infirm slaves. The purpose of this restriction I cannot per