Page:Notes on the History of Slavery - Moore - 1866.djvu/21

 law doctrines, which the magitrates mut have ometimes found inconvenient in adminitration. The preamble to the Body of Liberties itelf might have been contrued into ome vague recognition of rights in individual members of ociety uperior to legilative power—although it was promulgated by the po]eors of the mot arbitrary authority in the then actual holders of legilative and executive power. Compare Hurd's Law of Freedom and Bondage, ., 198. Had they only learned to reaon as ome of the modern writers of Maachuetts hitory have done on this ubject, the poor Indians and Negroes of that day might have compelled additional legilation if they could not vindicate their rights to freedom in the general court. For the firt article of the Declaration of Rights in 1780, is only a new. edition of “the glittering and founding generalities” which prefaced the Body of Liberties in 1641. Under the latter, human lavery exited for nearly a century and a half without erious challenge, while under the former it is aid to have been abolihed by inference by a public opinion which till continued to tolerate the lave-trade.

But to the law and the tetimony. The ninety-firt article of the Body of Liberties appears as follows, under the head of

"91. There hall never be any bond laverie, villinage or captivitie amongt us unles it be lawfull captives taken in jut warres, and uch trangers as willingly elle themelves or are old to us. And thee hall have all the liberties and Chritian uages