The Journal of Negro History, Volume 5, 1920Various
History
The Journal of Negro History, Volume 5, 1920
Various
African Americans -- Periodicals
In 1797 the Imperial Act of 1732 for the sale of Negroes and other
hereditaments for debt in the American Plantations was repealed so far
as it related to Negroes[7] but this made no difference in their
status. The courts, however, were becoming astute in favor of
assisting those claiming freedom. In February, 1798, a certain female
Negro slave called Charlotte belonging to Miss Jane Cook left her
mistress and refused to return. On information laid she was committed
by the magistrates to prison. She sued out a writ of habeas corpus
from the Court of King's Bench at Montreal and Chief Justice, James
Monk, ordered her release. On this becoming known, the Negroes of the
city and district of Montreal became very threatening in their
demeanor. Many renounced all service and one woman called Jude who had
been bought at Albany in 1795 for L80 by Elias Smith, a merchant of
Montreal, left her master and was committed to prison in the same way
by the magistrates. Being brought up in the Court of King's Bench at
Montreal on habeas corpus, Chief Justice Monk discharged her March 8,
1798 without deciding the question of slavery. The Chief Justice
declared that he would set free every Negro, articled apprentice, or
domestic servant who should be committed to prison in this way by the
magistrates. But this was because the statute in force at that
time[8] gave power to the magistrates to cause such due correction and
punishment to be ministered to an apprentice as they thought fit and
this empowered them to commit apprentices to the house of correction
as a punishment, but it gave no authority to commit to a common gaol
or other prison.
These decisions alarmed the owners of slaves: and a petition from many
inhabitants of Montreal was presented to the House of Assembly April
19, 1799, by Joseph Papineau. This petition set forth the ordinance of
the Intendant Raudot in 1709[9] the Act of 1732,[10] that of 1790,[11]
the facts concerning Charlotte, Jude and the other Negroes, the
judgments of Chief Justice Monk, and the absence of any house of
correction. It prayed that an Act should be passed that until a house
of correction should be established every slave, Panis or Negro who
should desert the service of his master, might be proceeded against in
the same way as apprentices in England, and be committed to the common
gaol of the District; and further that no one should aid or receive a
deserting slave or that there should be passed a law declaring that
there was no slavery in the Province or such other provision
concerning slaves should be made as the House should deem
convenient.[12] The petition was laid on the table.
In 1799 there was passed an Act providing houses of correction for
several districts, but no provision was made concerning slavery.
Perhaps the wisdom of this house proved insufficient to devise any
"provision convenable."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account