Barrington in his observations upon _magna carta_ c. 4. observes, that the villeins who held by servile tenures were considered as so many negroes on a sugar plantation; the words "_liber homo_," in magna carta, c. 14. with all deference to sir Edward Coke, who says they mean a _free-holder_, I understand as meaning _a free man_,[Liber homo, &c. the title of _freeman_ was formerly _confined_ to the _nobility_ and _gentry_ who were _descended_ of free ancestors.--Burgh's Political Disquisitions, vol. iii. p. 400, who cites Spelman's Glossary, voc. Liber homo.] as contradistinguished from a _villein_: for in the very next sentence the words "et _villanus_ alterius quam noster," occur. Villeins must certainly have been numerous at that day, to have obtained a place in the Great Charter. It is no less an evidence that their condition was in a state of melioration. In Poland, at this day, the peasants seem to be in an absolute state of slavery, or at least of villeinage, to the nobility, who are the land-holders.] The first introduction of Negroes into Virginia happened, as we have already mentioned, in the year 1620; from that period to the year 1662 there is no compilation of our laws, in print, now to be met with. In the revision made in that year, we find an act declaring that no Englishman, trader, or other, who shall bring in any Indians as servants and assign them over to any other, shall sell them for _slaves_, nor for any other time than English of like age should serve by act of assembly [1662. c. 136.]. The succeeding session all children born in this country were declared to be bond, or free, according to the condition of the mother [1662. Sess. d. c. 12.]. In 1667 it was declared, "That the conferring of baptism doth not alter the condition of the person baptized, as to his bondage or freedom [1667. c. 2.]." This was done, "that divers masters freed from this doubt may more carefully endeavour the propagating of Christianity, by permitting their slaves to be baptized." It would have been happy for this unfortunate race of men if the same tender regard for their bodies, had always manifested itself in our laws, as is shewn for their souls in this act. But this was not the case; for two years after, we meet with an act, declaring, "That if any slave resist his master, or others, by his master's orders correcting him, and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, such death should not be accounted felony: but the master or other person appointed by his master to punish him, be acquit from molestation: _since it could not be presumed that prepensive malice_, which alone makes _murder felony_, should induce any man to destroy his own estate."[11] This cruel and tyrannical act was, at three different periods [1705. c. 49. 1723. c. 4. 1748. c. 31.] re-enacted, with very little alteration; and was not finally repealed till the year 1788 [1788. c. 23.]--above a century after it had first disgraced our code.