The actual importation was small,[46] and almost entirely unrestricted before the Revolution, save by a few light, general duty acts. In 1774 the further importation of slaves was prohibited, because "the increase of slaves in this Colony is injurious to the poor and inconvenient." The law prohibited importation under any pretext by a penalty of L100 per slave.[47] This was re-enacted in 1784, and provisions were made for the abolition of slavery.[48] In 1788 participation in the trade was forbidden, and the penalty placed at L50 for each slave and L500 for each ship engaged.[49] 22. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ Enough has already been said to show, in the main, the character of the opposition to the slave-trade in New England. The system of slavery had, on this soil and amid these surroundings, no economic justification, and the small number of Negroes here furnished no political arguments against them. The opposition to the importation was therefore from the first based solely on moral grounds, with some social arguments. As to the carrying trade, however, the case was different. Here, too, a feeble moral opposition was early aroused, but it was swept away by the immense economic advantages of the slave traffic to a thrifty seafaring community of traders. This trade no moral suasion, not even the strong "Liberty" cry of the Revolution, was able wholly to suppress, until the closing of the West Indian and Southern markets cut off the demand for slaves. FOOTNOTES: [1] Cf. Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, II. 449-72; G.H. Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_; Charles Deane, _Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery_. [2] Cf. _American Historical Record_, I. 311, 338. [3] Cf. W.C. Fowler, _Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut_, etc., pp. 122-6. [4] _Ibid._, p. 124. [5] Deane, _Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts_, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 5th Ser., III. 392. [6] _Ibid._, III. 382. [7] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, II. 454.