turb their devotion, unless such person, &c. so entering the said place (of worship) shall have first obtained from some magistrate appointed to keep the peace, &c. a warrant, &c. in case a magistrate shall be then actually within the distance of three miles from such place of meeting, otherwise the provisions, &c. (of the act of 1800, above cited) to remain in full force." 2 Brevard's Digest, 261. If this latter act yields to the slave a privilege in assembling for divine worship beyond what he possessed before, it must consist, it appears to me, chiefly in preventing interruptions by persons, who, acting from a sense of official obligation, might deem themselves compelled, by the provisions of the former act, to hunt out and disperse the congregations of negro worshippers wherever they might be found. For it must happen, I apprehend, very frequently, that the quorum of white persons cannot, with much certainty, be depended upon. And, in such case, the poor slave, disappointed in his expectations of the quorum, will be at once subjected to the terrible penalty of the twenty-five lashes of the cowskin on his bare back, well laid on!!

In Virginia, it will be remembered, that "all meetings, &c. of slaves, free negroes and mulattoes mixing, &c. with such slaves at any meeting house, &c. or any other place, &c. in the night, under any pretext whatsoever, are declared to be unlawful assemblies, and the civil power may disperse the same, and inflict corporal punishment on the offenders." Slaves may, however, attend at church on any day of public worship.

Mississippi has adopted the law of Virginia, with a proviso, that the master or overseer of a slave may, in writing, grant him permission to attend a place of religious worship, at which the minister may be white and regularly ordained or licensed, or, at least, two discreet and reputable white persons appointed by some regular church or religious society, shall attend. Mississippi Rev. Code, 390.

An opinion seems, at one period, to have obtained in many of the states, that by consenting to the baptism of his slave, the master virtually enfranchised him. To remove the pretext which was thus furnished, for withholding the administration of a rite so commonly practised among christians, the following

brief section was enacted in Maryland. "Forasmuch as many people have neglected to baptize their negroes, or suffer them to be baptized, on a vain apprehension that negroes by receiving the sacrament of baptism, are manumitted and set free, Be it enacted, &c. That no negro or negroes, by receiving the holy sacrament of baptism, is thereby manumitted or set free, nor hath any right or title to freedom or manumission, more than he or they had before, any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Act of 1715, chap. 44, § 23. So in the year 1711, the legislature of South Carolina, deemed a similar act necessary. "Since," according to the language of the preamble, "charity and the christian religion which we profess, oblige us to wish well to the souls of all men; and that religion may not be made a pretence to alter any man's property and right, and that no persons may neglect to baptize their negroes or slaves, or suffer them to be baptized, for fear that thereby they should be manumitted and set free, Be it, &c. enacted, That it shall be, and is hereby declared lawful, for any negro, or Indian slave, or any other slave or slaves whatsoever, to receive and profess the Christian religion, and be thereunto baptized." 2 Brevard's Digest, 229. The section then provides, that such profession of religion and submission to baptism, shall not be construed to effect an emancipation of any slave, &c.*

* The doubts which gave rise to these laws of Maryland, and South Carolina, probably originated in two judicial investigations which had occurred in England, a short time previously. The first of these, is reported in 3 Modern Reports, 120-1. (A. D. 1686-7) and is there thus stated: "Sir Thomas Grantham bought a monster in the Indies, which was a man of that country, who had the perfect shape of a child growing out of his breast, as an excrescency, all but the head. This man he brought hither, (i. e. to England) and exposed to the sight of the people for profit. The Indian turns Christian and was baptized, and was detained from his master, who brought a homine replegiando, (i. e. a writ by which his title to retain the man as property might be legally tested.) The sheriff returned, that he had replevied the body, &c. And then the Court of Common Pleas, BAILED HIM." How the case was ultimately disposed of, does not appear, but the proceeding even thus far, was calculated to excite a fear, lest the profession of Christianity and the administration of baptism, might be decided to entitle the slave to the privileges of a free man.

I know of no exception to the general bearing of the foregoing laws and observations, unless the following concise enactment of the legislature of Louisiana, may be thought to form one. "It shall be the duty of every owner, to procure to his sick slaves, all kinds of temporal and spiritual assistance which their situation may require." 1 Martin's Digest, 610. Giving to this provision, the most favourable interpretation, it is but a kind of death-bed charity..

V. SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED OF THE SLAVE NOT TO THE

In 1696, The question, whether the baptism of a negro slave, WITHOUT THE PRIVITY OR CONSENT OF HIS MASTER, emancipated the slave, underwent an elaborate discussion, before the judges of the King's Bench. Owing to a misconception of the form of the action, a final decision was not given, and the plaintiff, being, of course, unsuccessful on that occasion, the doubts which had resulted from the former case, were strengthened rather than impaired.

The arguments of the counsel for the defendant, are sufficiently curious to deserve transcription: "Being baptized, according to the use of the church, he (the slave) is thereby made a christian, and christianity is inconsistent with slavery. And this was allowed even in the time when the Popish religion was established, as appears by Littleton, for in those days, if a villain, had entered into religion, and was professed, as they called it, the lord could not seize him; and the reason there given is, because he was dead in law, and if the lord might take him out of his cloister, then he could not live according to his religion. The like reason may now be given for baptism, being incorporated into the laws of the land; if the duties which arise thereby cannot be performed in a state of servitude, the baptism must be a manumission. That such duties cannot be performed, is plain, for the persons baptized are to be confirmed by the diocesan, when they can give an account of their faith, and are enjoined by several acts of parliament, to come to church. But if the lord hath still an absolute property over him, then he might send him far enough from the performance of those duties, viz. into Turkey, or any other country of infidels, where they neither can or will be suffered to exercise the Christian religion." In conclusion, the counsel remarks, "It is observed among the Turks, that they do not make slaves of those of their own religion, though taken in war; and if a Christian be so taken, yet if he renounce Christianity and turn Mahometan, he doth thereby obtain his freedom. And if this be a custom, allowed among infidels, then baptism, in a christian nation, as this is, should be an immediate enfranchisement to them, as they should thereby acquire the privileges and immunities enjoyed by those of the same religion, and be entitled to the laws of England." See 5 Modern Reports, 1901. Chamberline vs. Hervey,

WILL OF HIS MASTER ONLY, BUT TO THE WILL OF ALL OTHER WHITE PERSONS.

While the institution of slavery exists, every thing like resistance to the master's lawful authority should be decisively checked. Strict subordination must be exacted from the slave, or bloodshed and murders will unavoidably ensue. The laws of the slave-holding states demand, however, a much larger concession of power to the master, than is here granted—they demand that the life of the slave shall be in the master's keeping-that the slave having the physical ability to avoid the infliction of a barbarous and vindictive punishment by his master, shall not be permitted to do so. They go indeed, even beyond this-they place the slave under the like restriction, in relation to every white person, without discrimination as to character, and with but little consideration as to motives. Thus it is enacted in Georgia "If any slave shall presume to strike any white person, such slave, upon trial and conviction before the justice or justices, according to the directions of this act, shall for the first offence, suffer such punishment as the said justice or justices shall, in his or their discretion think fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second offence, suffer DEATH. Prince's Digest, 450. The law of South Carolina, 2 Brevard's Digest, 235, is in the same words, except that death is not made the punishment of the second, but of the third offence. In both of these states, a proviso is annexed to this law, which shows plainly, that however wanton, or dangerous may be the attack upon the slave, he is still compelled to submit.

"Provided always, that such striking, &c., be not done by the command, and in the defence of the person or property of the OWNER, OR OTHER PERSON having the care and government of such slave, in which case, the slave shall be wholly excused, and the owner or other person, &c., shall be answerable as if the act had been committed by himself."

In Maryland, act of 1723, chap. xv. § 4, a justice of the peace, for this offence, may direct the offender's ears to be cropt-and this, though he be a free black. In Kentucky, the same general principle is recognized, though enforced by penalties much less severe; yet there, as in Maryland, free coloured

persons are included.

2

"If any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or free, shall at any time, lift his or her hand, in opposition to any person, not being a negro, mulatto, or Indian, he or she so offending, shall for every such offence, proved by the oath of the party, before a justice of the peace of the county where such offence shall be committed, receive thirty lashes on his or her bare back, well laid on, by order of such justice." Litt. and Swi. Digest, 1153. Nearly similar to this law of Kentucky, was that of Virginia, from the year 1680, to the year 1792, at which latter date, the following exception was added, "except in those cases where it shall appear to such justice, that such negro or mulatto, was wantonly assaulted, and lifted his or her hand in his or her defence." 1 Rev. Code, 426-7.

There is a section of a law in Louisiana, which, though in terms, applying to free persons of colour only, may be properly cited to evidence the sentiments which are entertained there on this subject. The gravity with which the strange principle it asserts, is declared, will of itself, excuse its introduction here, though not altogether congruous with the main object of this sketch.-"Free people of colour ought never to insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive themselves equal to the whites; but on the contrary, they ought to yield to them on every occasion, and never speak or answer them, but with respect, under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the offence." 1 Martin's Digest, 640-42.

My chief objection to these laws, is, that they furnish a pretext, and may I not say, an inducement to an ignoble mind, to oppress and to tyrannise over the defenceless slave. He must patiently endure every species of personal injury, which a white person, however brutal and ferocious his disposition,-be he a drunkard, or even a maniac,-may choose to offer.

Several of the slave-holding states have adopted laws, which are highly objectionable for the reason just given. The subjoined may be taken as a specimen: "If any slave shall happen to be slain for refusing to surrender him or herself,