In all the matters of law, civil and criminal, the slave had no rights. Under an act of 1705, Catholics, Indian and Negro slaves, were denied the right to appear as "witnesses in any cases whatsoever," "not being Christians;"[190] but this was modified somewhat in 1732, when Negroes, Indians, and Mulattoes were admitted as witnesses in the trial of slaves.[191] In criminal causes the slave could be arrested, cast into prison, tried, and condemned, with but one witness against him, and sentenced without a jury. The solemnity and dignity of "trial by jury," of which Englishmen love to boast, was not allowed the criminal slave.[192] And, when a slave was executed, a value was fixed upon him; and the General Assembly was required to make an appropriation covering the value of the slave to indemnify the master.[193] More than five slaves meeting together, "to rebel or make insurrection" was considered "felony;" and they were liable to "suffer death, and be utterly excluded the benefit of clergy;"[194] but, where one slave was guilty of manslaughter in killing another slave, he was allowed the benefit of clergy.[195] In case of burglary by a slave, he was not allowed the benefit of the clergy, except "said breaking, in the case of a freeman, would be burglary."[196] And the only humane feature in the entire code of the colony was an act passed in 1772, providing that no slave should be condemned to suffer "unless four of the judges" before whom he is tried "concur."[197] The free Negroes of the colony of Virginia were but little removed by law from their unfortunate brothers in bondage. Their freedom was the act of individuals, with but one single exception. In 1710 a few recalcitrant slaves resolved to offer armed resistance to their masters, whose treatment had driven them to the verge of desperation. A slave of Robert Ruffin, of Surry County, entered into the plot, but afterwards revealed it to the masters of the rebellious slaves. As a reward for his services, the General Assembly, on the 9th of October, 1710, gave him his manumission papers, with the added privilege to remain in the colony.[198] For the laws of the colony required "that no negro, mulatto, or indian slaves" should be set free "except for some meritorious services." The governor and council were to decide upon the merits of the services, and then grant a license to the master to set his slave at liberty.[199] If any master presumed to emancipate a slave without a license granted according to the act of 1723, his slave thus emancipated could be taken up by the church-warden for the parish in which the master of the slave resided, and sold "by public outcry." The money accruing from such sale was to be used for the benefit of the parish.[200] But if a slave were emancipated according to law, the General Assembly paid the master so much for him, as in the case of slaves executed by the authorities. But it was seldom that emancipated persons were permitted to remain in the colony.