some, that New Hampshire at that time held men in vassalage. The often quoted letter of Dr. Belknap must serve us again. The doctor says:

6

"The present constitution of Massachusetts was established in 1780. The first article of the declaration of rights, asserts that all men are born free and equal.' . . . This was inserted, not merely as a moral or political truth, but with a particular view to establish the liberation of the negroes, and so it was understood by the people at large; but some doubted whether it was sufficient. .. The State of New Hampshire established their constitution in 1783, and in the first article of the declaration of rights, it is asserted that all men are born equally free and independent.' The construction there put on this clause is, that all who are born since the constitution, are free, but those who were in slavery before, are not liberated by it. By reason of this construction (which, by the way, I do not intend to vindicate,) the blacks in that State are in the late census distinguished into free and slaves, there being no Indians residing within those limits."

So much for a contemporaneous exposition of apparently synonymous phrases.

You, sir, are not without fears that St. Paul, were he to reappear, might meet with rough usage at the hands of some calling themselves Christians, for the part he felt himself constrained by the Holy Ghost to take on this exciting subject; and particularly for sending a runaway back to his master.

Of what punishment would they be adjudged worthy, who were engaged in promoting the law, the sixth section of the act which has just been quoted, were they to come again in the flesh? What man, who has the least desire to bask in the sunshine of popular favor, would dare to mount the stump in their behalf? And yet, it was passed by a senate, of which Samuel Adams was president, and approved by his Excellency, John Hancock: of all the world, just the two men, the extravagance of whose devotion to liberty had rendered them so preeminently obnoxious to the British authorities, that they alone were excepted from the amnesty which Gen.

Gage on certain conditions proffered to all besides. There are symptoms, which render it not improbable, that their offence might now, as then, be deemed "of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration than that of condign punishment." It is also worthy of remark, that Hancock, at this particular moment, owed his elevation to the chair principally to the impression, that in consequence of his inflexible attachment to the people, he would exercise greater lenity towards the infatuated insurgents, who, under Shays had been involved in an unsuccessful rebellion, than they could expect from his opponent, Governor Bowdoin, who was looked upon as the advocate of more stringent measures. It cannot be supposed, that so experienced a pilot as Hancock, with his eye on such a political horizon, would have tolerated the least encroachment upon what was regarded as popular rights, or was known to exist in the popular wish.

In connection with the subject, it cannot be deemed impertinent to notice the proceedings of the Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts, as detailed in a Report presented May 30, 1849. At their meeting, in 1848, this venerable body, on motion of a most highly respectable member, appointed a committee to prepare a report which should contain "A brief History of the Rise and Progress of Slavery in our Country." In accordance with this resolution, a committee of ten was raised, and the report was the fruit of their labors. Having a year before them to mature their plans, the report was prepared with great deliberation. It appears by the record, that the report itself was not presented to the meeting; but an abstract, purporting to contain all its essential features was read and adopted with but one dissenting vote. The report has been printed and circulated as an expression of the views entertained by the convention; and I have seen no notice that it does not represent, in a satisfactory manner, the sentiments of the individual members. We are author

ized, therefore, to look upon it as an official statement of the views which the Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts entertain of Slavery.

On the fifty-seventh page of the document, is the following paragraph, which is quoted entire :

"They are familiar facts, that when Thomas Keyson (or Kezar) and James Smith imported a number of slaves into Massachusetts, in 1645, the citizens of Boston denounced them, and all others engaged in the same traffic, as 'malefactors and murderers;' committed them to prison; bore public testimony against the heinous crime of manstealing;' and ordered the negroes to be restored, at the public charge, to their native country, the General Court at the same time, by letter, expressing their indignation at their wrongs; also, that in 1652, the General Court of Rhode Island passed a well-considered law to this effect: That no black mankind, or white being, shall be forced by covenant, bond, or otherwise, to serve any man, or his assigns, longer than ten years;' and that the man that will not let them go free, or shall sell them away elsewhere, to the end that they may be enslaved to others a longer time, he or they shall forfeit to the Colony forty pounds.' And equally familiar is the melancholy fact, that these honorable movements of the Fathers of New England, two centuries ago, were thwarted and overruled by the covetousness and despotic authority of the mother country. Their wise enactments were set aside, and their consciences and rights subjected to the will of an unjust foreign government.

Now what impression is this language naturally calculated to make? What impression did the writer himself intend that it should make? Why, manifestly, that in 1645, "the citizens of Boston" had their indignation aroused in consequence of the importation “of a number of slaves." This is the gist of it, so far as Smith and Keyser are concerned. But the peculiarities of the transaction, on account of which the people were exasperated, and which alone caused the determination to restore them to their native country, are wholly unnoticed. No allusion is made to the distinction created by law between buying men and stealing men. For aught that appears in the

document, the whole excitement was raised by the attempt to bring negroes here in the condition of slaves; and that it had no reference to the mode by which they had been obtained. Whether this is a fair and impartial exhibition of the entire proceeding, and worthy of the distinguished source whence it emanated, the history of the transaction already cited will enable the reader to decide. He will be struck by the thought, whether the account is marked by that appearance of candor which we always expect from the gown? Is it truthful, or, from some cause or other, is it not altogether disingenuous?

And what are we to infer from the notice taken in the Report of the law of 1652, concerning "black mankind,” in Rhode Island? The most obvious meaning is, that the freemen of that colony were opposed to perpetual vassalage; and that the law limiting its duration would have remained in force during the whole term of their colonial dependence, but for the "covetousness and despotic authority " of the metropolitan government. If this is not the import of the two last sentences in the quotation, it is difficult to elicit one.

Providence was founded in 1636. Every body has heard of Roger Williams and his persecutions. He began his settlement, and set up a government by purchasing his land of the natives without any charter from the crown. In 1644 Williams went to England, and there prevailed on "both houses of parliament to grant unto him and his friends with him, a free and absolute charter of civil government for the parts of his abode." "Thus," says Bancroft, "were the places of refuge for 'soul liberty' on the Narragansett Bay incorporated with full power and authority to rule themselves."" Things proceeded in this way until the Restoration. In 1663 Charles II. conferred a royal charter on Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Bancroft, speaking of the charter of Connecticut, granted in 1662, says, "It conferred on the colonists unqualified power to govern themselves." And

in relation to the Rhode Island charter, just referred to, he says, it "was at length perfected, and, with new principles, embodied all that had been granted to Connecticut." Then, as if no longer able to contain himself, he breaks out into the following encomiastic strains:

"This charter of government, constituting, as it then seemed, a pure democracy, and establishing a political system which few beside the Rhode Islanders themselves believed to be practicable, is still in existence, and is the oldest constitutional charter, now valid, in the world. It has outlived the principles of Clarendon and the policy of Charles II. The probable population of Rhode Island, at the time of its reception, may have been twenty-five hundred. In one hundred and seventy years that number has increased forty fold; and the government, which was hardly thought to contain checks enough on the power of the people, to endure even among shepherds and farmers, protects a dense population, and the accumulations of a widely extended commerce. Nowhere in the world have life, liberty, and property, been safer than in Rhode Island.”

This was chanted no longer ago than 1837.

We have all heard how Newport was built up, and of THE COMMERCE from which she derived her wealth. Who can doubt the truth of the rumors after reading the anecdote of Dr. Stiles, which is given on the authority of President Wayland. If they are true, the time was when it might have. been said of Newport, as a distinguished tragedian in one of his rhapsodies is reported to have said to an audience in Liverpool, “Every brick in your houses is cemented by the blood of slaves."

Except the encroachment of Andros from 1686 to 1689, Rhode Island never had any thing in the shape of a royal governor from beginning to end.

It must be apparent, that the Report is the production of one whose ideas were in great confusion, and consequently that he is sometimes obscure. Not to cavil about verbal inaccuracies, what will be thought of a clergyman who desig