UPPER CANADA--EARLY PERIOD
The first Parliament of the Province of Upper Canada sat at Newark
formerly and now Niagara-on-the-Lake, September 17, 1792. The very
first act of this first Parliament of Upper Canada reintroduced the
English civil law.[1] This did not destroy slavery, nor did it
ameliorate the condition of the slave. It was rather the reverse, for
as the English law did not, like the civil law of Rome and the systems
founded on it, recognize the status of the slave at all, when it was
forced by grim fact to acknowledge slavery, it had no room for the
slave except as a mere piece of property. Instead of giving him rights
like those of the "servus," he was deprived of all rights, marital,
parental, proprietary, even the right to live. In the English law and
systems founded on it, the slave had no rights which the master was
bound to respect.[2] At one time, indeed, it was understood in the
English colonies that the master had the _jus vitae necisque_ over his
slaves; but at the beginning of the eighteenth century the Crown much
to the anger and disgust of the colonists made the murder of a Negro a
capital offence, and at least some of the governors vigorously upheld
this decision.[3]
Upper Canada was settled almost wholly by United Empire Loyalists who
had left their homes in the revolted colonies and kept their faith to
the Crown. Many of them brought their slaves as well as their other
property to the new land. The statute of 1790 encouraged this
practice.[4]
The first Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada was Col. John Graves
Simcoe. He hated slavery and had spoken against it in the House of
Commons in England. Arriving in Upper Canada in the summer of 1792, he
was soon made fully aware by the Chloe Cooley case that the horrors of
slavery were not unknown in his new province. There came up to the
Executive Council the complaint that a Negro girl thus named had been
cruelly forced across the border and sold in the United States by one
Vroomen. Much indignation was expressed by both citizens and
officials.
The Attorney-General was John White[6] an English lawyer of no great
eminence indeed but of sufficient skill to know that the brutal master
was well within his rights in acting as he did. He had the same right
to bind, export, and sell his slave as to bind, export, and sell his
cow. Chloe Cooley had no rights which Vrooman was bound to respect;
and it was no more a breach of the peace than if he had been dealing
with his heifer. Nothing came of the direction to prosecute and
nothing could be done unless there should be an actual breach of the
peace.
It is probable that it was this circumstance which brought about
legislation. At the second session of the First Parliament which met
at Newark, May 31, 1793, a bill was introduced and unanimously passed
the House of Assembly. The trifling amendments introduced by the
Legislative Council were speedily concurred in, the royal assent was
given July 9, 1793, and the bill became law.[7]
Simcoe, as was his duty, reported to Henry Dundas afterwards Lord
Melville, Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning this
Act September 28, 1793. Simcoe had discovered that there was much
resistance to the slave law. There were many plausible arguments of
the demand for labor and the difficulty of obtaining "Servants to
cultivate Lands." "Some possessed of Negroes," said he, "knowing that
it was very questionable whether any subsisting Law did authorize
Slavery and having purchased several taken in war by the Indians at
small prices wished to reject the Bill entirely; others were desirous
to supply themselves by allowing the importation for two years. The
matter was finally settled by undertaking to secure the property
already obtained upon condition that an immediate stop should be put
to the importation and that Slavery should be gradually abolished."[8]
The Act recited that it was unjust that a people who enjoy freedom by
law should encourage the introduction of slaves, and that it was
highly expedient to abolish slavery in the province so far as it could
be done gradually without violating private property. It repealed the
Imperial Statute of 1790 so far as it related to Upper Canada, and to
enact that from and after the passing of the act "No Negro or other
person who shall come or be brought into this Province ... shall be
subject to the condition of a slave or to bounden involuntary service
for life." With that regard for property characteristic of the
English-speaking peoples, the act contained an important proviso
which continued the slavery of every "negro or other person subjected
to such service" who had been lawfully brought into the province. It
then enacted that every child born after the passing of the act, of a
Negro mother or other woman subjected to such service, should become
absolutely free on attaining the age of twenty-five, the master in the
meantime to provide "proper nourishment and cloathing" for the child,
but to be entitled to put him to work, all issue of such children to
be free whenever born. It further declared that any voluntary contract
of service or indenture should not be binding longer than nine years.
Upper Canada was the first British possession to provide by
legislation for the abolition of slavery.[9]
It will be seen that the statute did not put an end to slavery at
once. Those who were lawfully slaves remained slaves for life unless
manumitted and the statute rather discouraged manumission, as it
provided that the master on liberating a slave must give good and
sufficient security that the freed man would not become a public
charge. But, defective as it was, it was not long without attack. In
1798, Simcoe had left the province never to return, and while the
government was being administered by the timeserving Peter
Russell,[10] a bill was introduced into the Lower House to enable
persons "migrating into the province to bring their negro slaves with
them." The bill was contested at every stage but finally passed on a
vote of eight to four. In the Legislative Council it received the
three months' hoist and was never heard of again.[11] The argument in
favor of the bill was based on the scarcity of labor which all
contemporary writers speak of, the inducement to intending settlers to
come to Upper Canada where they would have the same privileges in
respect of slavery as in New York and elsewhere; in other words the
inevitable appeal to greed.
After this bill became law, slavery gradually disappeared. Public
opinion favored manumission and while there were not many manumissions
_inter vivos_[12] in some measure owing to the provisions of the act
requiring security to be given in such case against the free man
becoming a public charge, there were not a few emancipated by
will.[13]
The number of slaves in Upper Canada was also diminished by what seems
at first sight paradoxical, that is, their flight across the Detroit
River into American territory. So long as Detroit and its vicinity
were British in fact and even for some years later, Section 6 of the
Ordinance of 1787 "that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude in the said territory otherwise than as punishment of crime"
was a dead letter: but when Michigan was incorporated as a territory
in 1805, the Ordinance of 1787 became legally and at least in form
effective. Many slaves made their way from Canada to Detroit, then a
real land of the free; so many, indeed, that we find that a company of
Negro militia composed entirely of escaped slaves from Canada was
formed in Detroit in 1806 to assist in the general defence of the
territory.[14]
The number of slaves in Upper Canada cannot be ascertained with
anything approaching accuracy. The returns of the census of 1784 show
that very many of the 212 slaves in the District of Montreal, which
then extended from the Rivers St. Maurice and Godfrey to the Detroit
River _de jure_ and to the Mississippi _de facto_, were the property
of the United Empire Loyalists on the St. Lawrence in territory which
in 1791 became part of the new Province of Upper Canada.
The settlement crept up the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario so as to be
as far as the River Trent by the end of the eighteenth century: and
Prince Edward County had also its quota of settlers. Until the
nineteenth century had set in there were practically no settlers from
the Trent to near York (Toronto) but that splendid territory of level
clay and loam land covered by magnificent forests of beech and maple
gradually filled in and by the 30's was fairly well settled. In the
latter territory there were very few, if any, slaves.[15]
Farther east, however, in what became the Eastern and Midland
Districts there were many slaves. It is probable that by far the
greatest number had their habitat in that region. When York became the
provincial capital (1796-7) slaves were brought to that place by their
masters. In the Niagara region there were also some slaves, in great
part bought from the Six Nation Indians as some of these in the
eastern part of the province were bought from the Mississaguas who
had a rendezvous on Carleton Island near Kingston. In the Detroit
region there were many slaves, some of them Panis;[16] and many of
both kinds, Panis and Negro bought from the Shawanese, Pottawattaimies
and other Western Indians, taken for the most part from the Ohio and
Kentucky country. Most of these slaves were west of the river, few
being in the Province of Upper Canada _de jure_. Omitting Detroit, the
number of slaves in the province at the time of the Act of 1793 was
probably not far from 500.[17]
In the Eastern District, part of which became the District of Johntown
in 1798, there were certainly some slaves. Justus Sherwood one of the
first settlers brought a Negro slave Caesar Congo to his location near
Prescott. Caesar was afterwards sold to a half pay officer Captain
Bottom settled about six miles above Prescott and after about twenty
years service was emancipated by his master. Caesar afterwards married
a woman of color and lived in Brockville for many years and until his
death. Daniel Jones another old settler had a female Negro slave and
there were a few more slaves in the district.[18]
It is possible that this part of the province was the home of a Negro
who at the age of 101 appeared at the Assize Court at Ottawa in 1867
to give evidence. He was born in the Colony of New York in 1766, had
been brought to Upper Canada by his master, a United Empire Loyalist,
had fought through the war of 1812 on the British side, was present at
the Battles of Chippewa and Lundy's Lane and was wounded at Sackett's
Harbor.[19]
In the Midland District at Kingston such leading families as the
Cartwrights, Herkimers and Everetts were slave owners. Further west
the Ruttans, Bogarts, Van Alstynes,[20] Petersons, Allens, Clarks,
Bowers, Thompsons, Meyers, Spencers, Perrys, Pruyns, speaking
generally all the people of substance had their slaves.[21]
It may be noted that there are many records of births, deaths and
marriages of slaves. In the Register for the Township of
Fredericksburg (Third Township) of the Reverend John Langhorn,
Anglican clergyman, we find in 1791, November 13, that he baptized
"Richard son of Pomps and Nelly a negro living with Mr. Timothy
Thompson.[22] On October 6, 1793, "Richard surnamed Pruyn a negro,
living with Harmen Pruyn," on March 2, 1796, "Betty, surnamed Levi, a
negro girl living with Johannes Walden Meyers" of the Township of
Thurlow. On April 22, 1805, "Francis, son of Violet, a negro woman
living with Hazelton Spencer[23] Esq. by Francis Green." We find that
"Francis, son of Violet ... by Francis Green as was supposed" was
buried January 17, 1806.[24]
In a paper by the late J. C. Hamilton, a barrister of Toronto, he says
that Lieutenant Governor Sir Alexander Campbell had favored him with a
note concerning slaves at Kingston, which concluded "I had personally
known two slaves in Canada: one belonging to the Cartwright and the
other to the Forsyth family.[25] When I remember them in their old
age, each had a cottage, surrounded by many comforts on the family
property of his master and was the envy of all the old people in the
neighborhood."[26]
York (Toronto) and its neighborhood were settled later but they
received their quota of Negro slaves, at least the town did. In 1880,
the _Gazette_ at York announces to be sold "a healthy strong negro
woman, about thirty years of age; understands cooking, laundry and the
taking care of poultry. N.B. She can dress ladies' hair. Enquire of
the Printers, York, Dec. 20, 1800."[27]
The best people in the capital owned Negroes. Peter Russell who had
been administrator of the government of the province and therefore the
head of the State advertised in the _Gazette and Oracle_ of February
19, 1806:
"To be sold: a Black Woman named Peggy, aged forty years and a Black
Boy her son named Jupiter, aged about fifteen years, both of them the
property of the Subscriber. The woman is a tolerable cook and
washerwoman and perfectly understands making soap and candles. The boy
is tall and strong for his age, and has been employed in the country
business but brought up principally as a house servant. The price of
the woman is one hundred and fifty dollars. For the boy two hundred
dollars payable in three years with interest from the day of sale and
to be secured by bond, &c. But one-fourth less will be taken for ready
money."
Peggy was not a satisfactory slave, she had awkward visions of
freedom. On September 2, 1803, Russell advertised: "The subscriber's
black servant Peggy not having his permission to absent herself from
his service, the public are hereby cautioned from employing or
harbouring her without the owner's leave. Whoever will do so after
this notice may expect to be treated as the law directs."
Peggy was not the only slave who was dissatisfied with her lot. On
March 1, 1811, William Jarvis, the Secretary of the Province "informed
the Court that a negro boy and girl, his slaves, had the evening
before been committed to prison for having stolen gold and silver out
of his desk in his dwelling house and escaped from their said master;
and prayed that the Court would order that the said prisoners with one
Coachly a free negro, also committed to prison on suspicion of having
advised and aided the said boy and girl in eloping with their master's
property...." It was "ordered that the said negro boy named Henry
commonly called Prince be recommitted to prison and there safely kept
till discharged according to law and that the said girl do return to
her said master and Coachly be discharged."[29]
Jarvis had slaves when he resided at Niagara. We find in the Register
of St. Mark's Parish there an entry of February 5, 1797, of Moses and
Phoebe, Negro slaves of Mr. "Sec'y Jarvis." Nor is this a unique entry
for we find this: "1819 April 4, Cupitson Walker and Margt. Lee (of
Colour)," but these may have been free.
There were baptized: "1793, January 3, Jane a daughter of Martin, Col.
Butler's Negro," "1794, September 3, Cloe, a mulatto," "1800, March
29, Peggy a mulatto (_filia populi_)," "1807, May 10, John of a negro
girl (_filius populi_)" and in the same list was a soldier shot for
desertion, a soldier who shot himself, "an unfortunate stranger," "R.
B. Tickel, alas he was starved," an Indian child, "Cutnose Johnson, a
Mohawk chief" and there is recorded the burial of "Mrs. Waters a negro
woman," September 29, 1802.[30]
Slaves continued to run away. Colonel Butler in the _Upper Canada
Gazette_ of July 4, 1793, advertised a reward of $5 for his "negro-man
servant named John."[31] On August 28, 1802, Mr. Charles Field of
Niagara advertised in the _Herald_: "All persons are forbidden
harbouring, employing or concealing my Indian Slave Sal, as I am
determined to prosecute any offender to the extremity of the law and
persons who may suffer her to remain in or upon their premises for the
space of half an hour, without my written consent will be taken as
offending and dealt with accordingly."[32]
There was always a demand for good slaves. For example, in the
_Gazette and Oracle_ of Niagara October 11, 1797, W. & J. Crooks of
West Niagara "Wanted to purchase a negro girl of good disposition": a
little later, January 2, 1802 the _Niagara Herald_ advertised for sale
"a negro man slave, 18 years old, stout and healthy; has had the
Smallpox and is capable of service either in the house or out-doors.
The terms will be made easy to the purchaser, and cash or new lands
received in payment." On January 18, 1802, the _Niagara Herald_
proclaimed for sale: "the negro man and woman, the property of Mrs.
Widow Clement. They have been bred to the business of a farm; will be
sold on highly advantageous terms for cash or lands."[33]
Slavery in Upper Canada continued until the Imperial Act of 1833[34]
but there does not seem to be any record of sales after 1806. Probably
the last slaves to become free were two who are mentioned by the late
Sir Adam Wilson, Chief Justice successively of the Courts of Common
Pleas and Queen's Bench at Toronto. These were "two young slaves, Hank
and Sukey whom he met at the residence of Mrs. O'Reilly, mother of the
venerable Miles O'Reilly, Q. C., in Halton County about 1830. They
took freedom under the Act of 1833 and were perhaps the last slaves in
the province."[35]
In the Detroit neighborhood there were undoubtedly many slaves, Panis
and Negro: most of these were lost to the province on the delivery up
of the retained territory in 1796 under the provisions of Jay's
Treaty. But some were on the Canadian side and some were brought over
by their masters on the surrender. Colonel Matthew Elliott who settled
in 1784 just below Amherstburg brought many slaves, some sixty it is
said. The remains of slave quarters are still in existence on the
place. Jacques Duperon Baby the well-known fur-trader had at least
thirty.
Antoine Louis Descompte dit Labadie, who raised a family of
thirty-three children was the owner of slaves also. He was a wealthy
farmer of the Township of Sandwich (now Walkerville) and died in 1806,
aged 62. On May 26, 1806, he made at Sandwich his will by which he
made the following bequest: "I also give and bequeath to my wife the
use or service of two slaves that she may select, as long as she
continues to be my widow." After a number of bequests there follows:
"I will that all my personal property not here above bequeathed as
well as my slaves with the exception of the two left to my wife, be
portioned out or sold, and that the proceeds arising therefrom be
equally divided between my said wife and the nine children[36] born
out of my marriage with her."
Some of these slaves were probably Panis. There is extant a parchment
receipt dated at Detroit, October 10, 1775, which reads:
"Je certifie avoir vendu et livre au Sieur Labadie, une esclave
Paniese[37] nommee Mannon pour et en consideration de la quantite
de quatre-vingt minots[38] de Ble de froment qu'il doit me payer
a mesure qu'il aura au printemps prochain, donne sous ma main au
Detroit ce dixieme jour d'Octobre, 1775.
Temoin (Signe) James Sterling[39]
(Signe) John Porteous.
Some of the reports of judges who presided over criminal assizes,
moreover, contain references to slavery. Mr. Justice Powell tried a
Negro, Jack York, with a jury at Sandwich for burglary in 1800. He was
found guilty and in accordance with the law at that time, was
sentenced to death. Powell respited the prisoner that the pleasure of
the Lieutenant Governor might be known. The Lieutenant-Governor at
that time was General Peter Hunter a rigid disciplinarian. Hunter
wrote Powell that as York had been convicted of "the most atrocious
offence without any circumstances of doubt or alleviation" he was to
be hanged. When York was made aware of his fate, he promptly escaped
from the ramshackle gaol at Sandwich.
In the proceedings Captain McKee informed the judge that the main
witness had "been an Indian prisoner redeemed by his father and had
lived in his kitchen and he did not think her credit good." She was
one of Mr. James Girty's three Negroes and "known to be saucy."[40]
Another report nearly a score of years later may be of interest. It
can be best understood in its historical setting. During the war of
1812, as soon as the American invasion of Canada began, prices of all
commodities began to soar.[41] There was a great demand for beef for
the troops regular and militia and the commissariat was not too
scrupulously particular to inquire the source whence it might come.
The result was that a crime which had been almost unknown suddenly
increased to alarmingly large proportions. Cattle roaming in the woods
were killed and the meat sold to the army. Prosecutions were
instituted in many cases. It was found that the perpetrators were
generally, but by no means always, landless men, not infrequently
refugee slaves, who had come to the province from the United States.
The offence was punishable with death:[42] and convictions were not
hard to obtain. But the punishment of death was not in practice
actually inflicted.
Whatever the cause, the crime continued until normal conditions were
reestablished when it became as rare as it had been before the war. At
the Fall Assizes, 1819, at York before Mr. Justice Campbell and a
jury, a man of color, Philip Turner, was convicted of stealing and
killing a heifer and sentenced to death: Mr. Justice Powell who had
been in the Commission of Oyer and Terminer with Campbell reported to
the Lieutenant-Governor[43] that there had as yet been no execution
for this offence in the province and recommended that the sentence
should be committed to banishment for life from His Majesty's
dominions.[44] Tradition has it that Turner was a refugee from the
United States and begged to be hanged rather than sent back where he
would be again enslaved.[45]
When the fugitive slave reached the soil of Upper Canada he became and
was free with all the rights and privileges of any other freeman: but
sometimes the former condition of servitude had unhappy results. One
case will suffice. John Harris was a slave in Virginia. He rented a
house in Richmond and lived in it with his wife Sarah Holloway. Harris
was a painter and gave the greater part of his earnings to his master.
The wife earned money by washing and gave to her mistress part of her
scanty earnings. The wife's second name was that of her master Major
Halloway in whose house she had been married in 1825 to Harris by the
Reverend Richard Vaughan, a Baptist minister, a free man. The couple
had three children.
In 1833 Harris effected his escape to Upper Canada and came to Toronto
(then York) in the spring of 1834 under the name of George Johnstone.
In 1847 he obtained from John Beverley Robinson, Chief Justice of
Upper Canada a deed of three acres of land part of Lot 12 in the First
Concession from the bay east of the river Don in the Township of York.
He died without a will in February, 1851. The deserted wife after his
escape married a man by the name of Brown. She continued a slave
until the fall of Richmond and died in 1869 or 1870.[46]
About that time the eldest son came to Canada, and he brought an
action as the heir-at-law against one Cooper, the person in
possession. All the facts were clear and the only difficulty in the
way was as to the validity of the marriage of the Negro. Chief Justice
William Buell Richards, of the Court of Queen's Bench tried the case
at the Fall Assizes, 1870, at Toronto. Evidence was given by a
Virginia lawyer and judge[47] that there was no law in Virginia either
authorizing or forbidding the marriage of slaves because "slaves were
property and not persons for marital purposes.... In short, by the law
of Virginia, slaves were but property, treated as property
exclusively, except where by special Statute they were made persons."
On this evidence, therefore, the Chief Justice dismissed the action.
The plaintiff appealed to the full Court of Queen's Bench urging that
the slaves had done all they could to make their marriage legal. In
vain, they were not British subjects and the rules of international
law were too rigid to allow of the court holding the marriage legal.
Mr. Justice Wilson in giving the judgment of the Court said:[48]
"This is, no doubt, an unfortunate conclusion, for the plaintiff is
undoubtedly the child of John Harris and Sarah who were made man and
wife in form and by all the usual solemnities of real matrimony. The
parents were of mature age, of sound sense, reason and understanding.
The father had a trade which he followed by permission of his master
for a yearly sum which he paid to him for the privilege, or as it is
said 'he hired his own time.' He rented a house for himself; he was
married with the consent of those who could give it by a minister in
orders and in form at least under the sanction of religion: he lived
with the woman he had taken as his wife and had children by her and
left her only to gain his freedom; yet it is manifest by the force of
positive human law, there was no marriage and no legitimate
issue."[49]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Statute is (1792) 32 George III, c. 1 (U.C.).
[2] Compare the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States in the celebrated Dred Scott case. 19 Howard, 354,
pp. 404, 405.
[3] See as to this Reginald W. Jeffery, _The History of The Thirteen
Colonies of North America 1497-1763_ (London), p. 190. This
interesting work which I have found accurate gives Governor Spotswood
as enforcing the Royal decree rigidly.
[4] See ante, p.
[5] This is copied from the Canadian Archives, Q. 282, pt. 1, pp. 212
sqq.; taken from the official report sent to Westminster by Simcoe.
There is the usual amount of uncertainty in spelling names Grisley or
Crisley, Fromand, Frooman, Froomond or Fromond (in reality Vrooman).
The following is a report of a meeting of his Executive Council:
"At the Council Chamber, Navy Hall, in the County of Lincoln,
Wednesday, March 21st, 1793.
"Present
"His Excellency, J.G. Simcoe, Esq., Lieut.-Governor, &c., &c.,
The Honble. Wm. Osgoode, Chief Justice,
The Honble. Peter Russell.
"Peter Martin (a negro in the service of Col. Butler) attended the
Board for the purpose of informing them of a violent outrage committed
by one Fromand, an Inhabitant of this Province, residing near Queens
Town, or the West Landing, on the person of Chloe Cooley a Negro girl
in his service, by binding her, and violently and forcibly
transporting her across the River, and delivering her against her will
to certain persons unknown; to prove the truth of his Allegation he
produced Wm. Grisley (or Crisley).
"William Grisley an Inhabitant near Mississague Point in this Province
says: that on Wednesday evening last he was at work at Mr. Froemans
near Queens Town, who in conversation told him, he was going to sell
his Negro Wench to some persons in the States, that in the Evening he
saw the said Negro girl, tied with a rope, that afterwards a Boat was
brought, and the said Frooman with his Brother and one Vanevery,
forced the said Negro Girl into it, that he was desired to come into
the boat, which he did, but did not assist or was otherwise concerned
in carrying off the said Negro Girl, but that all the others were, and
carried the Boat across the River; that the said Negro Girl was then
taken and delivered to a man upon the Bank of the River by Froomand,
that she screamed violently and made resistance, but was tied in the
same manner as when the said William Grisley first saw her, and in
that condition delivered to the man ... Wm. Grisley farther says that
he saw a negro at a distance, he believes to be tied in the same
manner, and has heard that many other People mean to do the same by
their Negroes.
"RESOLVED--That it is necessary to take immediate steps to prevent the
continuance of such violent breaches of the Public Peace, and for that
purpose, that His Majesty's Attorney-General, be forthwith directed to
prosecute the said Fromond.
"ADJOURNED."
[6] John White was called to the bar in 1785 at the Inner Temple. He
practised for a time but unsuccessfully in Jamaica and through the
influence of his brother-in-law, Samuel Shepherd, and of Chief Justice
Osgoode was appointed the first Attorney General of Upper Canada. It
is probable, but the existing records do not make it certain, that it
was he who introduced and had charge in the House of Assembly of the
bill for the abolition of slavery passed in 1793, shortly to be
mentioned. His manuscript diary is still extant, a copy being in the
possession of the writer: One entry reads under date Newark Tuesday
March 6 1793 "John Young from Grand River came with Mr. MacMichael
respecting his runaway negro. Rec'd 5 Dols."
[7] The statute is (1793) 33 Geo. III, c. 7 (U.C.). The Parliament of
Upper Canada had two houses, the Legislative Council, an upper house,
appointed by the Crown; and the Legislative Assembly, a lower house or
House of Commons, as it was sometimes called, elected by the people.
The Lieutenant Governor gave the royal assent. The bill was introduced
in the Lower House, probably by Attorney General White, as stated in
last note, and read the first time, June 19. It went to the committee
of the whole June 25, and was the same day reported out. On June 26 it
was read the third time, passed and sent up for concurrence. The
Legislative Council read it the same day for the first time, went into
committee over it the next day, June 28, and July 1, when it was
reported out with amendments, passed and sent down to the Commons July
2. That house promptly concurred and sent the bill back the same day.
See the official reports: _Ont. Arch. Reports for 1910_ (Toronto,
1911), pp. 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33. _Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909_
(Toronto, 1911), pp. 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42.
[8] _Canadian Archives_, Q. 279, 2, p. 335.
White in his diary says "To the 21 June, some opposition in the House
not much"--under date June 25 when the Bill was in Committee of the
whole he says "Debated the Slave Bill hardly: Met much opposition but
little argument."
[9] Simcoe was almost certainly the prime mover in the legislation of
1793. When giving the royal assent to the bill he said: "The Act for
the gradual abolition of Slavery in this Colony, which it has been
thought expedient to frame, in no respect meets from me a more
cheerful concurrence than in that provision which repeals the power
heretofore held by the Executive Branch of the Constitution and
precludes it from giving sanction to the importation of slaves, and I
cannot but anticipate with singular pleasure that such persons as may
be in that unhappy condition which sound policy and humanity unite to
condemn, added to their own protection from all undue severity by the
law of the land may henceforth look forward with certainty to the
emancipation of their offspring." See _Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909_, pp.
42-43.
I do not understand the allusion to "protection from undue severity by
the Law of the land." There had been no change in the law, and undue
severity to slaves was prevented only by public opinion. It is
practically certain that no such bill as that of 1798 would have been
promoted with Simcoe at the head of the government as his sentiments
were too well known.
Vermont excluded slavery by her Bill of Rights (1777), Pennsylvania
and Massachusetts passed legislation somewhat similar to that of Upper
Canada in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784, New Hampshire by
her Constitution in 1792, Vermont in the same way in 1793; New York
began in 1799 and completed the work in 1827, New Jersey 1829.
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa were organized as a
Territory in 1787 and slavery forbidden by the Ordinance, July 13,
1787, but it was in fact known in part of the Territory for a score of
years. A few slaves were held in Michigan by tolerance until far into
the nineteenth century notwithstanding the prohibition of the
fundamental law (_Mich. Hist. Coll._, VII, p. 524). Maine as such
probably never had slavery, having separated from Massachusetts in
1820 after the Act of 1780; although it would seem that as late as
1833 the Supreme Court of Massachusetts left it open when slavery was
abolished in that State (Commonwealth _v._ Aves, 18 Pick. 193, 209).
(See Cobb's _Slavery_, pp. clxxi, clxxii, 209; Sir Harry H. Johnston's
_The Negro in the New World_, an exceedingly valuable and interesting
work, but not wholly reliable in minutiae, pp. 355 et seq.)
[10] Russell became administrator of the Government of Upper Canada,
July 21, 1796, and held that position until the arrival of the new
Lieutenant-Governor General Peter Hunter, August 16, 1799.
[11] _Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909_, pp. 64, 69, 70, 71, 75; _ibid._ for
1910, pp. 67, 68, 69, 70.
The bill was introduced in the Lower House by Christopher Robinson,
member for Addington and Ontario. He was a Virginian Loyalist, who in
1784 emigrated to New Brunswick, and in 1788 to that part of Canada,
later Lower Canada; and in 1792 to Upper Canada. Accustomed from
infancy to slavery, he saw no great harm in it--no doubt he saw it in
its best form.
The chief opponent of the bill was Robert Isaac Dey Gray, the young
Solicitor General, the son of Major James Gray, a half-pay British
Officer. He studied law in Canada. He was elected member of the House
of Assembly for Stormont in the election of 1796, and again in 1804.
The motion for the three months' hoist in the Upper House was made by
the Honorable Richard Cartwright seconded by the Honorable Robert
Hamilton. These men, who had been partners, generally agreed on public
measures and both incurred the enmity of Simcoe. He called Hamilton a
Republican, then a term of reproach distinctly worse than Pro-German
would be now, and Cartwright was, if anything, worse. But both were
men of considerable public spirit and great personal integrity. For
Cartwright see _The Life and Letters of Hon. Richard Cartwright_,
Toronto, 1876. For Hamilton see Riddell's edition of _La
Rochefoucault's Travels in Canada in 1795_ (Toronto, 1817), in _Ont.
Arch. Rep. for 1916_; Miss Carnochan's _Queenston in Early Years,
Niagara Hist. Soc. Pub._ No. 25; _Buffalo Hist. Soc. Pub._ Vol. 6, pp.
73-95.
There was apparently no division in the Upper House although there
were five other Councillors in addition to Cartwright and Hamilton in
attendance that session, viz.: McGill, Shaw, Duncan, Baby and Grant;
and the bill passed the committee of the whole.
[12] Slaves were valuable even in those days. A sale is recorded in
Detroit of a "certain Negro man Pompey by name" for L45 New York
Currency ($112.50) in October, 1794; and the purchaser sold him again
January, 1795, for L50 New York Currency ($125.00). (_Mich. Hist.
Coll._, XIV, p. 417.) But it would seem that from 1770 to 1780 the
price ranged to $300 for a man and $250 for a woman (_Mich. Hist.
Coll._, XIV, p. 659). The number of slaves in Detroit is said to have
been 85 in 1773 and 179 in 1782 (_Mich. Hist. Coll._, VII, p. 524).
[13] A number of interesting wills are in the Court of Probate files
at Osgoode Hall, Toronto. One of them deserves special mention, viz.:
that of Robert I. D. Gray, the first Solicitor General of the
Province, whose death was decidedly tragic. In this will, dated August
27, 1803, a little more than a year before his death, he releases and
manumits "Dorinda my black woman servant ... and all her children from
the State of Slavery," in consequence of her long and faithful
services to his family. He directs a fund to be formed of L1,200 or
$4,800 the interest to be paid to "the said Dorinda her heirs and
Assigns for ever." To John Davis, Dorinda's son, he gave 200 acres of
land, Lot 17 in the Second Concession of the Township of Whitby and
also L50 or $200. John, after the death of his master whose body
servant and valet he was, entered the employ of Mr., afterwards Chief,
Justice Powell; but he had the evil habit of drinking too much and
when he was drunk he would enlist in the army. Powell got tired of
begging him off and after a final warning left him with the regiment
in which he had once more enlisted. Davis is said to have been in the
battle of Waterloo; he certainly crossed the ocean and returned later
on to Canada. He survived till 1871, living at Cornwall, Ontario, a
well-known character--with him, died the last of all those who had
been slaves in the old Province of Quebec or the Province of Upper
Canada.
In the _Canadian Archives, M. 393_, is the copy of a letter, the
property of the late Judge Pringle of Cornwall, by Robert I. D. Gray
to his sister Mrs. Valentine dated at Kempton February 16, 1804, and
addressed to her "at Captain Joseph Anderson's, Cornwall, Eastern
District": speaking of a trip to Albany, New York, he says:
"I saw some of our old friends while in the states, none was I more
happy to meet than Lavine, Dorin's mother. Just as I was leaving
Albany I heard from our cousin Mrs. Garret Stadts who is living in
Albany in obscurity and indigence owing to her husband being a drunken
idle fellow, that Lavine was living in a tavern with a man of the name
of Broomly. I immediately employed a friend of mine, Mr. Ramsay of
Albany, to negotiate with the man for the purchase of her. He did so
stating that I wished to buy her freedom, in consequence of which the
man readily complied with my wishes, and altho' he declared she was
worth to him L100 (_i.e._, $250) he gave her to me for 50 dollars.
When I saw her, she was overjoyed and appeared as happy as any person
could be, at the idea of seeing her child Dorin, and her children once
more, with whom if Dorin wishes it, she will willingly spend the
remainder of her days. I could not avoid doing this act, the
opportunity seemed to have been thrown in my way by providence and I
could not resist it. She is a good servant yet--healthy & strong and
among you, you may find her useful, I have promised her, that she may
work as much or as little as she pleases while she lives--but from the
character I have of her, idleness is not her pleasure, I could not
bring her with me, she wanted to see some of her children before she
sets out; I have paved the way for her, and some time this month,
Forsyth, upon her arrival here will forward her to you...."
Then follows a pathetic touch:
"I saw old Cato, Lavine's father at Newark, while I was at Col.
Ogden's; he is living with Mrs. Governeur--is well taken care of &
blind--poor fellow came to _feel_ me, for he could not _see_, he asked
affectionately after the family."
In the will of the well-known Colonel John Butler of Butler's Rangers
there are bequests to his son Andrew of "a negro woman named Pat": to
his grandson John of "a Negro Boy named George ... until the said
negro arrives at the years that the Law directs to receive his
freedom" and to John's sister Catharine "a negro girl named Jane" for
a similar time.
[14] _Michigan Hist. Coll._, XIV, p. 659. But the actual effect of the
Ordinance of 1787, even after 1805 was not absolute. "As late as 1807
Judge Woodward refused to free a negro man and woman on a writ of
habeas corpus, holding in effect that as they had been slaves at the
time of the surrender in 1796, there was something in Jay's Treaty
that forbade their release." _Michigan as a Province, Territory and
State_, 1906, p. 339. "There is a tradition that even as late as the
coming of Gen. John T. Mason, as Secretary of the Territory in 1831,
he brought some domestic slaves with him from Virginia. It is not
improbable that a few domestic servants continued with their old
Masters down to the time of the adoption of the State Constitution"
(in 1835) _ibid._, p. 338, note.
Before Detroit and its adjoining territory were given up by the
British to the Americans under Jay's Treaty, August, 1796, there were
many instances of slaves escaping from the United States territory to
British territory in that neighborhood and vice versa. One instance of
escape from British territory will suffice.
Colonel Alexander McKee, a well-known and very prominent Loyalist of
Detroit, lost a mulatto slave in 1795 and his friend and colleague
Captain Matthew Elliott sent a man David Tait to look for him in what
is now Indiana. Tait's success or want of success is shown by his
affidavit before George Sharp a justice of the peace for the Western
District of Upper Canada residing in Detroit. The whole deposition
will be given as it illustrates the terms on which the two peoples
were living at the time in that country, and shows that even then the
charges were made which were afterwards made one of the pretexts for
the War of 1812. It is given in the _Mich. Hist. Coll._, Vol. XII, pp.
164, 165.
"DEPOSITION
"I being sent by Captain Elliott in search of a Molato man name
Bill the property of Colonel McKee, which was thought to be at
Fort Wayne, But on my Arrival at the Glaize was inform'd by the
officer there that he was gone, they said he had gained his
liberty, by getting into their lines he being stole from their
Country.
"They abused the Gentlemen in this place very & Told me that
Governor Sancom (Simcoe) Colonel England and Captain Elliott
caused bills in print to be dropped near their fort, Encouraging
their Soldiers to desert.
"They called Coll McKee & Capt Elliott dam'd rasculs and said
that they gave the Indians Rum to make them Drunk to prevent them
from going to Counsil & That Capt Brent they said was a Dam'd
rascul and had done everything in his power against them. But
they said in Course of Nine Months that they Expected to be in
full possession of Detroit and all the Country between their & it
& I begged liberty to withdraw when Major Hunt told me to make
the best of my way from Whence I came, while I was getting ready
to return the Serjeant of their Guard came & Told me it was the
Majors orders that I should leave the place immediately & not to
stay about any of the Indian Camps. Which Orders I obeyed.
(signed) DAVID TAIT.
Sworn before me at Detroit 4th August 1795.
GEO SHARP, J. P. W. D."
Indian Affairs, M. G. VII.
[15] I have found no reliable accounts of slaves in this region--some
traditions which I have investigated proved unreliable and illusory.
[16] I cannot trace many Panis slaves in Upper Canada proper; that
there were some at Detroit is certain and equally certain that some
were at one time on both shores of the Niagara River. I do not know of
an account of the numbers of slaves at the time; in Detroit, March 31,
1779, there were 60 male and 78 female slaves in a population of about
2,550 (_Mich. Hist. Coll._, X, p. 326); Nov. 1, 1780, 79 male and 96
female slaves in a somewhat smaller population (_Mich. Hist. Coll._,
XIII, p. 53); in 1778, 127 in a population of 2,144 (_Mich. Hist.
Coll._, IX, p. 469); 85 in 1773, 179 in 1782 (_Mich. Hist. Coll._,
VII, p. 524); 78 male and 101 female (_Mich. Hist. Coll._, XIII, p.
54). The Ordinance of Congress July 13, 1787, forbidding slavery
"northwest of the Ohio River" passed with but one dissenting voice,
that of a delegate from New York was quite disregarded in Detroit
(_Mich. Hist. Coll._, I, 415); and indeed as has been said, Detroit
and the neighboring country remained British (_de facto_) until
August, 1796, and part of Upper Canada from 1791 till that date.
[17] This is indicated by a number of facts none of much significance
and all together far from conclusive--but it is a mere estimate
perhaps not much more than a guess and I should not be astonished if
it were proved that the estimate was astray by 100 either way. Indeed
contemporary estimates gave for the Nassau District alone in 1791, 300
Negro slaves and a few Panis. Col. Mathew Elliott in 1784 brought more
than 50 slaves to his estate at Amherstburg.
[18] See letter of Sheriff Sherwood, _Papers &c, Ontario Historical
Society_ 1901, Vol. 3, p. 107. Justus Sherwood came from Vermont,
originally from Connecticut, joined Burgoyne's army in 1777 and came
to Canada in 1778, joined Rogers' Rangers and served during the war.
He came to Prescott in 1784. He had had a not unusual experience with
the Continentals. His "Negro wench and two negroe children" had been
seized and "sold to Wm. Drake." (Second _Ont. Arch. Rep._, 1904, p.
820.) Daniel Jones, father of Sir Daniel Jones of Brockville, came
from Charlotte County, New York (_ibid._, p. 398). He was also a
native of Connecticut.
[19] He was in full possession of all his faculties and had been
brought to Ottawa to prove the death of one person in 1803 and of
another in 1814. The action was Morris _v._ Henderson "Ottawa Citizen"
May 3, 1867. Robert I. D. Gray mentioned in note 13 above, came from
this district.
[20] A Van Alstyne--Major Peter Van Alstyne--was elected to represent
Prince Edward County in the first Legislative Assembly when Philip
Dorland was unseated because he would not take the prescribed oath
being a Quaker.
[21] See the interesting paper read before the Women's Historical
Society of Toronto by Mrs. W. T. Hallam, B.A., and published in _The
Canadian Churchman_, May 8, 1919, republished in pamphlet form. I am
authorized by Mrs. Hallam to make full use of her researches and I
take advantage of this permission. Mrs. Hallam has also the following:
"There is an old orchard between Collins Bay and Bath, Ontario, now
used as a garden, which belongs to the Fairfield family. The children
of this Loyalist family brought the seeds in their pockets from the
old home in Vermont, and here lie buried the slaves belonging to the
Fairfield and Pruyn families. On the way over they milked the cows,
which were brought with them, and sometimes the milk was the only food
which they had. The old Fairfield Homestead, built in 1793, is still
standing, but the negro quarters are unused, for as those who live
there say, "On a hot day you would declare the slaves were still
there."
Miss Alice Fairfield of the White House, Collins Bay, a descendant of
these Fairfields gives the following account in a paper read before
the Woman's Historical Society, Toronto (of which Mrs. Seymour Corley
of Toronto has been good enough to furnish me a copy) "In March 1799,
Stephen Fairfield married Maria Pruyn (from Kinder Hook, N. Y.), whose
marriage portion included several slaves. They remained with the
family as a matter of course after the law had given them their
freedom. Of their devotion a story is told--"Mott" the old black nurse
of my great grandmother walked to York (Toronto) a distance of 160
miles in cold weather to warn her of a plot against her property--the
shoes were literally worn off her feet." The writer adds "The Tory
branch of the Fairfield family that came to Canada were from Paulet
County, Vermont ... they brought some 'niggers' as they called their
black slaves, into Canada." "The first apples grown in the country
were raised from the seeds of apples with which the Children had
filled their pockets at the old home."
A contributor to the _Napanee Banner_ writes: "There has been
considerable controversy of late whether slaves ever were owned in
this section of Canada. The Allens brought three slaves with them who
remained with the family for years. Thomas Dorland also had a number
of slaves who were members of the house-hold as late as 1820. The
Pruyns who lived on the front of Fredericksburg had, we are informed,
over a dozen slaves with them. The Ruttans of Adolphustown brought two
ablebodied slaves with them. Major Van Alstyne also had slaves; so had
John Huyck who lived north of Hay Bay, and the Bogarts near neighbors,
and the Trampours of the opposite side of Hay Bay. The Clarks of
Ernestown, now called Bath, owned slaves who were with them years
after their residence in Canada. The Everetts of Kingston Township and
the Cartwrights of Kingston had theirs."
[22] A man of considerable note: in 1800 appointed with Richard
Cartwright, Commissioner to settle the finances between the two
Provinces.
[23] Member for Lenox, Hastings and Northumberland Counties in the
first Legislative Assembly: and afterwards Sheriff.
[24] The Pruyns of Fredericksburg are credited with owning more slaves
than any other family in that region. Mrs. Hallam, _ut supra_, p. 4.
The above extracts are taken from the Registers published by the _Ont.
Hist. Soc._, Vol. 1.
[25] Both prominent families in Kingston.
[26] _Trans. Can. Inst._, Vol. 1 (1889-1890), p. 106.
[27] For this and the following incident see that most interesting
book "_Toronto of Old_" by Henry Scadding, D.D., Toronto, 1873, pp.
293, 294, 295.
[28] Henry Scadding's _Toronto of Old_, p. 296. Dr. Scadding, speaks
of his "in former times" gazing at Amy Pompadour with some curiosity.
Miss Elizabeth Russell, sister of the Administrator, had a slave, a
pure Negro Amy Pompadour, whom she gave to Mrs. Denison wife of
Captain John Denison, an old comrade in arms of her brother's.
[29] _Ibid._, p. 292. The boy if he had stolen his master's money
would be guilty of grand larceny, a capital offence at the time and
consequently not tried at the Quarter Sessions. He was, therefore,
recommitted to prison to await the Court of Oyer and Terminer and
General Gaol Delivery commonly called the Assizes.
The master probably withdrew the charge against the girl and Coachly,
or they may have been so fortunate as that there was no evidence
against them.
[30] See the lists in the _Ont. Hist. Soc. Papers_ (1901), Vol. 3, pp.
9 sqq.
In the list of marriages are found: "1797, Oct. 12, Cuff Williams and
Ann, Negroes from Mr. C. McNabb"; "1800, Dec. 1, Prince Robinson and
Phillis Gibson, Negroes" and six other marriages down to 1831 between
persons "of Colour". These last were probably not slaves.
That Joseph Brant "Thayendinaga," the celebrated Indian Chief, had
Negro slaves has been confidently asserted and as confidently denied.
That there were Negroes in his household seems certain and their
_status_ was inferior. Whether he called them slaves or not, it is
probable that he had full control of them.
See Stones' _Life of Brant_, New York, 1838. He rather boasted of his
slaves. He was attended on his journeys and at table by two of them,
Patton and Simon Gauseville. Hamilton in his _Osgoode Hall_, Toronto,
1904, says (p. 21): "Thayendinaga lived surrounded with slaves and
retainers in barbarous magnificence at Burlington." But that is
rhetoric.
[31] _Trans. Can. Inst._, Vol. 1 (1889-1890), p. 105.
[32] Dr. Scadding _ut supra_, p. 295. This is almost the only trace of
Panis slavery in Upper Canada, proper, which I have found. The attempt
to make a crime by the advertiser is not without precedent or
imitation: it was, however, merely a threat and a _brutum fulmen_.
[33] Dr. Scadding _ut supra_, pp. 294, 295.
Such advertisements as these of 1802 indicate an uneasiness as to the
security of the slave property. Dr. Scadding remarks "Cash and lands
were plainly beginning to be regarded as less precarious property than
human chattels," _ibid._, p. 295.
[34] See _supra_, p.
[35] _Trans. Can. Inst._, _ut supra_, p. 106.
These if actual slaves could not have been very young. If they were
brought into the province after the Act of 1793 they would become free
_ipso facto_. If born after that Act they would not properly speaking
be slaves at all but only subject to service until the age of 25.
If they were slaves they must have been at least 37 in 1830; but
probably they were born after 1793 and had not attained the age of 25
in 1833. They might then be young as described by Sir Adam.
[36] Labadie had been twice married.
[37] For "Panise."
[38] The French Minot is 39.36 litres; the Canadian 36.34 litres or
63.94 pints--the bushel is 64 pints--the Canadian minot is
consequently almost exactly one bushel.
[39] _Essex Historical Society--Papers and Addresses_, Vol. 1,
Windsor, Ont. (1913), pp. 13, 39, 48-52.
This is translated thus: I certify that I have sold and delivered to
Mr. Labodie a Panis slave called Manon for and in consideration of 80
minots (practically 80 bushels) of wheat which he is to pay me as he
has it the coming spring--given under my hand at Detroit this 10th day
of October, 1775.
WITNESS: (Signed)
(Signed) JOHN PORTEOUS. JAMES STERLING."
[40] The fact was that Jack York had broken into McKee's dwelling
house to commit rape and he had committed rape on the person of Mrs.
Ruth Sufflemine (or Stufflemine).
Powell's report is dated from Mount Dorchester, September 22, 1800.
_Canadian Archives, Sundries U.C. 1792-1800_; Hunter's decision in May
is in _Canadian Archives Letters Hunter to Heads of Departments_, p.
65; York's escape is _ibid._, p. 84; the Death Warrant is referred to
in _Canadian Archives Sundries U.C. 1792-1800_.
There were certainly slaves in the Western District. The will of
Antoine Louis Descomps Labadie made May 26, 1806, contains a bequest
"I also give and bequeath to my wife Charlotte, the use or service of
two slaves that she may select as long as she continues to be my
widow." "A black boy slave to Mrs. Benton, widow of the late Commodore
of the Lakes" seems to have been as bad as Jack York. Convicted at
Kingston of a house robbery, a capital crime he had the "benefit of
clergy" that is, set free as a first offence. But he did not mend his
ways. He committed burglary and was convicted at Kingston 1795 before
Mr. Justice Powell. The judge sentenced him to be hanged but
recommended a pardon. He said the boy was said to be 17 but looked no
more than 15 and in view of his education as a slave he hoped that his
"would not be the first capital example." _Can. Arch._, B. 210.
[41] In a memorial by the judges of the Court of King's Bench to the
Lieutenant Governor, January 10, 1814, they point out that prices have
doubled since the war. The prices before the war and at the time were
of bread 1/ and 2/; of beef 6 d and 1/; of wood 7/6 and 15/.
[42] Before 1772, this was not a crime at all but only a civil
trespass; the Waltham Black Act (1722) 9 George I, c. 22 made it a
felony punishable with death without benefit of clergy. This continued
to be the law in England until the Act (1827) 7, 8 George IV, c. 27
(Imp.), and in Upper Canada until 1841.
[43] Sir Peregrine Maitland.
[44] Banishment existed as a punishment in Upper Canada until 1841,
when it was finally abolished and succeeded by imprisonment.
Banishment was a very common alternative for hanging. I have counted
as many as four cases at one assize.
[45] The tradition is a floating and rather indefinite one. It has
some plausibility but there is nothing which to my mind can be
dignified by the name of proof. The facts of the Turner case will be
found in a Report by Mr. (afterwards Chief) Justice Powell to Sir
Peregrine Maitland's Secretary Edward McMahon, November 1, 1819,
_Canadian Archives, Sundries, U.C._, 1819.
[46] _Canadian Archives_, Q. 324, pp. 432, 436 Letter, June 8, 1818,
from "Thos. N. Stewart, Capt. H. P. late Royal Newfoundland Regiment"
to the Right Honourable Earl Bathurst, dated from Barnstable, North
Devon.
Turning to a more pleasant subject, while it may not be strictly
within the purview of this treatise, it may be permitted to bring to
light from the files of the Canadian Archives a story of a poor black
woman who showed true humanity. It may be considered by some at the
expense of her patriotism. That will not be admitted by everyone, for
what share did the Negro have in America in which he lived more than
in Britain which offered him freedom?
When in May, 1813, General Dearborn took Fort George in Upper Canada,
one of his prisoners was Captain Thomas N. Stewart of the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment who was wounded. Taken to the United States, he
was with several other British officers kept for months a close
prisoner at Philadelphia as a hostage under the retaliation system.
"At length," said he, "I with fourteen other officers made my escape
from the prison at Philadelphia by sawing off the iron bars with the
springs of watches, but from the active search which was made ten of
my companions were retaken in the course of three days. I ...
attribute my success (as well as that of two more British officers) in
being enabled to elude the vigilance of the enemy to the kindness and
humanity of a poor black woman to whose protection we committed
ourselves in our _real character_ and situation: and notwithstanding a
reward of one hundred dollars was offered for the apprehension of each
officer without our even being able to reward her in an equal degree,
she persevered in affording us comfort and accommodation, greatly to
her own risk and loss by the total resignation of her small hut and a
tender of her services to our use visiting us only at night with
provisions, &c. This she continued to do for eight days. When it was
thought that the active search was in a great degree abated I ventured
by night to leave the abode of this black woman with the intention of
going to the Headquarters of the British Army in Canada and this I
ultimately succeeded in accomplishing."
His companions leaving one by one at different times also succeeded in
returning to the service of their country. Having only $70 and having
to travel 600 miles, Capt. Stewart could give the woman only $20: and
all she received from all the officers was only $50. He wrote Earl
Bathurst, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies asking that she
should be remunerated and saying that he would "be most happy to give
the address and the source thro' which communication could be made."
Bathurst replied June 13, asking for particulars, and Captain Stewart
June 18 wrote again on the eighteenth of June saying that the matter
required the utmost circumspection and excusing himself from giving
information until he had communication with America, hoping to point
out the precise object whom "His Lordship has thought worthy of
remuneration." No doubt the matter then passed into the Secret
Service, as no further correspondence is preserved in documents open
to the public.
[46a] The motion was heard in Trinity Term, 34 Victoriae i.e. in
February, 1871, see the report in 31 Upper Canada Queens Bench
Reports, p. 182: Harris _v._ Cooper. The Court was composed of the
Chief Justice William Buell Richards, afterward Sir William Buell
Richards, Chief Justice of Canada, Mr. Justice Joseph Curran Morrison,
afterwards a Judge of the Court of Error and Appeal, and Mr. Justice
Adam Wilson, afterwards successively Chief Justice of the Court of
Common Pleas, and of the Court of Queen's Bench.
[47] Two years after her first husband's death, that is, in 1853, the
widow who had then married one Scott sold the lot to Mr. Boomer for
$300. Mr. Boomer sold two acres to Edward Osborne and he to Cooper for
$800. By 1871 the land had appreciated in value so as to make it worth
a lawsuit. Of course, the widow never had any right to sell the land,
but it was at least ungracious for her son to repudiate her deed.
[48] The law of Virginia as to marriages of slaves even with the
consent of the master was fully and clearly stated by the Court of
Appeals of Virginia in the case of Scott _v._ Raub (1872) 88 Virginia,
721. See also the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of Hall _v._ United States, 92 U. S. 127; and in Alabama,
Matilda _v._ Gardner, 24 Alabama, 719.
[49] 31 Upper Canada Queens Bench Reports at p. 195, 1871.