Page:Notes on the History of Slavery - Moore - 1866.djvu/67

 In 1745, a negro lave obtained from the Governor and Council a divorce for his wife's adultery with a white man. In 1758, it was adjudged by the Superior Court of Judicature, that a child of a female lave 'never married according to any of the forms precribed by the laws of this land,' by another lave, who ‘had kept her company with her mater's conent,’ was not a batard." Quincy's Reports, 30, note. This judgment indicates liberal views with regard to the law of marriage as applied to laves, although we upect there was pecial occaion for the exercie of charity and mercy which might deprive it of any authority as a leading cae.

It is perfectly well known that it was practically ettled in Maachuetts that baptim was not emancipation—although there is no evidence in their tatutes to how that the quetion was ever mooted in that colony, as it was in other colonies, where legilation was found neceary to etablih the doctrine.

Still it was in the power of maters in Maachuetts to deny baptim to their laves, as appears from the following extract, from Matthias Plant to the Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gopel, etc. Anwers to Queries, from Newbury, October 25, 1727:

"6. Negroe Slaves, one of them is deirous of baptim, but denied by her Mater, a woman of wonderful ene, and prudent in matters, of equal knowledge in Religion with mot of her ex, far exceeding any of her own nation that ever yet I heard of."