FOOTNOTES:

TO BE SOLD,For no Fault, the Owner having no employ for him,A likely Negro fellow, about 23 or 24 Years of Age; understands Cooking, waiting at Table, and Houshold Work, &c., &c. He speaks both English and French. For further Particulars enquire of the Printers.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1770.

TO BE SOLD,

For no Fault, the Owner having no employ for him,

A likely Negro fellow, about 23 or 24 Years of Age; understands Cooking, waiting at Table, and Houshold Work, &c., &c. He speaks both English and French. For further Particulars enquire of the Printers.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1770.

From the Subscriber, on Sunday morning the 24th ult, about four o'Clock, a Negro Lad named NEMO, born in Albany, near eighteen years of age, about five feet high full round fac'd, a little marked with the Smallpox, speaks English and French tolerably; he had on when he went away a double-breasted Jacket of strip'd flannel, old worsted Stockings, and a pair of English Shoes. Also a Negro Wench named CASH, twenty-six years old, about 5 feet 8 inches high, speaks English and French very fluently; she carried with her a considerable quantity of Linen and other valuable Effects not her own; and as she has also taken with her a large bundle of wearing apparel belonging to herself, consisting of a black satin Cloak, Caps, Bonnets, Ruffles, Ribbons, six or seven Petticoats, a pair of old Stays, and many other articles of value which cannot be ascertained, it is likely she may change her dress. All persons are hereby forewarned from harbouring or aiding them to escape, and Masters of vessels from carrying them off, as they may depend on being prosecuted to the utmost rigour of the Law;and whoever will give information where they are harboured; or bring them back to the Subscriber at Quebec, or to Mr. George Ross, Merchant at Sorel, shall have TEN DOLLARS Reward for each, and all reasonable charges.HUGH RITCHIE.N. B. The Lad was seen at Sorel on Friday morning the 29th ult. and there is reason to believe they are both lurking thereabout.Quebec, November 2, 1779.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1779.

HUGH RITCHIE.

N. B. The Lad was seen at Sorel on Friday morning the 29th ult. and there is reason to believe they are both lurking thereabout.

Quebec, November 2, 1779.

â€”Quebec Gazette, 1779.

Ran-Away on Sunday the 24th of October, JOHN BARCLAY, an Apprentice, aged 15 years, small of his age, has short black and lank Hair, dark hazle Eyes, good complexion a little freckled, speaks good English and a little French: had on when he went away a light grey Coat and Waistcoat, and stript cotton Trowsers with leather Breeches under them. Whoever will apprehend him or give information so that he may be apprehended, shall receive Five Guineas Reward fromSHOOLBRED & BARCLAY.Quebec, November 2, 1779.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1779.

SHOOLBRED & BARCLAY.

Quebec, November 2, 1779.

â€”Quebec Gazette, 1779.

Run Away from his bail, an indented servant man named Christian Miller, born in Germany, by trade a Tailor, he is about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches in stature, well made, middling long black hair, speaks English tolerably well, he was formerly a servant to a German Hessian officer, one Mr. Seiffort, Lieutenant in Capt. Schoels regiment, has very much the art and behaviour of a sham beau and has a variety of cloaths, viz. a Maroon Coat, a brown ditto, lined with light blue silk, the one had Gold the other Silver Buttons, a brown Great Coat and a variety of Waistcoats and Breeches: Whoever will apprehend the said Run-away, so as the subscriber may have him in custody shall receive FIVE GUINEAS reward, over and above any reasonable expences; and all masters of vessels, officers of the army and others, are forwarn'd not to harbour or entertain him nor to be aiding in his escape, on pain of being prosecuted as the law directs.Note. If apprehended at Quebec, apply to Mr. Wm. Laing, Merchant, or to the subscriber at Montreal.(Signed)Â Â JOHN MITTLEBERGER.Montreal, 4th July, 1782.Quebec Gazette1782.

Note. If apprehended at Quebec, apply to Mr. Wm. Laing, Merchant, or to the subscriber at Montreal.

(Signed)Â Â JOHN MITTLEBERGER.

Montreal, 4th July, 1782.

Quebec Gazette1782.

Ran Away from the subscriber, on Thursday evening the 21st instant, an Apprentice Boy named JOSEPH POWERS, a Shoemaker, about fifteen years of age, of a fair complexion short hair, speaks English and French, had on when he went away a Blanket Coat, light blue Waistcoat and Breeches very dirty, a Check Shirt much wore, a round Hat, and a pair of Slippers: this is to give notice to the public that they are not to harbour the said Apprentice in their houses or families, otherwise they will be prosecuted as the law directs.ALEXR. WALLACE.Quebec, November 27, 1782.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1782.

ALEXR. WALLACE.

Quebec, November 27, 1782.

â€”Quebec Gazette, 1782.

Ran-Away from the Printing-Office, On Monday night last, an Apprentice Lad named Duncan M'Donell, about 19 years of age, about five feet five inches high, of a fresh complexion; speaks English, French and Erse: all persons are hereby forwarn'd from harbouring him, as they may depend on being prosecuted to the utmost rigour of the Law, and whoever will bring him back shall have One Guinea Reward from thePRINTER.Quebec, April 17, 1783.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1783.

PRINTER.

Quebec, April 17, 1783.

â€”Quebec Gazette, 1783.

TO BE SOLD.A NEGRO WENCH about 18 years of age, who came lately from New York with the Loyalists. She has had the Small Poxâ€”The Wench has a good character and is exposed to sale only from the owner having no use for her at present.Likewise will be disposed of a handsome Bay Mare.For particulars enquire of the Printer.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1783.

TO BE SOLD.

A NEGRO WENCH about 18 years of age, who came lately from New York with the Loyalists. She has had the Small Poxâ€”The Wench has a good character and is exposed to sale only from the owner having no use for her at present.

Likewise will be disposed of a handsome Bay Mare.

For particulars enquire of the Printer.

â€”Quebec Gazette, 1783.

A Gentleman going to England has for sale, a Negro-wench, with her child, about 26 years of age, who understands thoroughly every kind of house-work, particularly washing and cookery: And a stout Negroâ€”boy, 13 years old: Also a good horse, cariole and harness. For particulars enquire at Mr. William Roxburgh's Upper-town, Quebec, 10th May, 1785.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1785.

â€”Quebec Gazette, 1785.

To be SOLD together.A Handsome Negro Man and a beautiful Negro Woman married to one another: the man from twenty-three to twenty-four years of age, between five and a half and six English feet high: the woman from twenty-two to twenty-three years of age; both of a good constitution. For further information, such as may be desirous of purchasing them must apply to Mr. Pinguet, in the Lower-town of Quebec, Merchant.â€”Quebec Gazette, 1788.

To be SOLD together.

A Handsome Negro Man and a beautiful Negro Woman married to one another: the man from twenty-three to twenty-four years of age, between five and a half and six English feet high: the woman from twenty-two to twenty-three years of age; both of a good constitution. For further information, such as may be desirous of purchasing them must apply to Mr. Pinguet, in the Lower-town of Quebec, Merchant.

â€”Quebec Gazette, 1788.

FOOTNOTES:[1]Canadian Archives, B. 163, p. 258:ibid., B. 163, p. 324.[2]Ibid., B. 163, p. 258.[3]As Britain kept possession of Detroit until 1796, many United Empire Loyalists settled on the west side of the river at that point. A few remained on the east side of the Niagara River as Fort Niagara was held in the same way.[4]Canadian Archives, B. 168, p. 42.Different detachments of disbanded regulars on Tp. 5 Cataraqui, detachment of Germans under Baron Kritzenstein on Tp. 5 Cataraqui and Rangers of 6 Nations Department settled with the Mohawks on Bay of Quinte return no servants.Canadian Archives, B. 168, p. 42. Report dated Montreal, July 1, 1784.[5]Canadian Archives, B. 168, pp. 44, 47, 48, 51, 55, 61, 63, 67, 68, 71, 77, September, 1784. See also B. 168, pp. 81, 88, 92, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102. These may be found in the Report for 1891 of theCanadian ArchivesDepartment, pp. 5-20.[6]Ibid., B. 169, p. 1. There is a column for "Male Slaves" and one for "Female Slaves." Thomas McMicken has the proud monopoly, he had one male slave. The other fifteen householders had none. But then he had 20 hogs to look after and no one else had more than 14; most many fewer.[7]Canadian Archives, B. 225, 2. p. 406. Massicotte B. R. H.ut supra.[8]Lafontaineut supra, pp. 21, 22.[9]Those in the text are taken from Mr. Massicotte's Article B. R. H.ut supra. The letter of Campbell isCan. Arch., B. 162, p. 351. That of Doty,ibid., p. 365: the Report isibid., p. 385.[10]In a letter from Henry Hope, Lieutenant-Governor dated Quebec, November 6, 1786, to Captain Enys, 29th Reg't., we read:"I am by desire of His Excellency the Commander in Chief (Lord Dorchester) to require that no negro slaves shall be permitted on any account to pass into this Province by the Post under your command."[11]Lafontaineut supra, pp. 22, 23, 24, 44, 45, 46.Le Monde IllustrÃ©December 9, 1893. Massicotte,Bulletin des Recherches Historiquesfor November, 1918, pp. 348 sqq.[12]Lafontaineut supra, p. 43. The advertisements spoken of are on p. 21.[13]Can. Arch., B. 217, p. 397. What if anything was done on the petition does not appear.[14](1790) 30 George III, c. 27.[15]The division of the Province of Quebec into two provinces, that is, Upper Canada and Lower Canada, was effected by the royal prerogative, Sec. 31, George III, c. 31, the celebrated Constitutional Act of Canada. Technically and in law, the new province was formed by Order in Council, August 24, 1791, but there was no change in administration until December 26, 1791.[16]These I owe to the kindness of the officers of the Canadian Archives Department of Ottawa.

[1]Canadian Archives, B. 163, p. 258:ibid., B. 163, p. 324.

[2]Ibid., B. 163, p. 258.

[3]As Britain kept possession of Detroit until 1796, many United Empire Loyalists settled on the west side of the river at that point. A few remained on the east side of the Niagara River as Fort Niagara was held in the same way.

[4]Canadian Archives, B. 168, p. 42.Different detachments of disbanded regulars on Tp. 5 Cataraqui, detachment of Germans under Baron Kritzenstein on Tp. 5 Cataraqui and Rangers of 6 Nations Department settled with the Mohawks on Bay of Quinte return no servants.Canadian Archives, B. 168, p. 42. Report dated Montreal, July 1, 1784.

[4]Canadian Archives, B. 168, p. 42.

Different detachments of disbanded regulars on Tp. 5 Cataraqui, detachment of Germans under Baron Kritzenstein on Tp. 5 Cataraqui and Rangers of 6 Nations Department settled with the Mohawks on Bay of Quinte return no servants.Canadian Archives, B. 168, p. 42. Report dated Montreal, July 1, 1784.

[5]Canadian Archives, B. 168, pp. 44, 47, 48, 51, 55, 61, 63, 67, 68, 71, 77, September, 1784. See also B. 168, pp. 81, 88, 92, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102. These may be found in the Report for 1891 of theCanadian ArchivesDepartment, pp. 5-20.

[6]Ibid., B. 169, p. 1. There is a column for "Male Slaves" and one for "Female Slaves." Thomas McMicken has the proud monopoly, he had one male slave. The other fifteen householders had none. But then he had 20 hogs to look after and no one else had more than 14; most many fewer.

[7]Canadian Archives, B. 225, 2. p. 406. Massicotte B. R. H.ut supra.

[8]Lafontaineut supra, pp. 21, 22.

[9]Those in the text are taken from Mr. Massicotte's Article B. R. H.ut supra. The letter of Campbell isCan. Arch., B. 162, p. 351. That of Doty,ibid., p. 365: the Report isibid., p. 385.

[10]In a letter from Henry Hope, Lieutenant-Governor dated Quebec, November 6, 1786, to Captain Enys, 29th Reg't., we read:"I am by desire of His Excellency the Commander in Chief (Lord Dorchester) to require that no negro slaves shall be permitted on any account to pass into this Province by the Post under your command."

[10]In a letter from Henry Hope, Lieutenant-Governor dated Quebec, November 6, 1786, to Captain Enys, 29th Reg't., we read:

"I am by desire of His Excellency the Commander in Chief (Lord Dorchester) to require that no negro slaves shall be permitted on any account to pass into this Province by the Post under your command."

[11]Lafontaineut supra, pp. 22, 23, 24, 44, 45, 46.Le Monde IllustrÃ©December 9, 1893. Massicotte,Bulletin des Recherches Historiquesfor November, 1918, pp. 348 sqq.

[12]Lafontaineut supra, p. 43. The advertisements spoken of are on p. 21.

[13]Can. Arch., B. 217, p. 397. What if anything was done on the petition does not appear.

[14](1790) 30 George III, c. 27.

[15]The division of the Province of Quebec into two provinces, that is, Upper Canada and Lower Canada, was effected by the royal prerogative, Sec. 31, George III, c. 31, the celebrated Constitutional Act of Canada. Technically and in law, the new province was formed by Order in Council, August 24, 1791, but there was no change in administration until December 26, 1791.

[16]These I owe to the kindness of the officers of the Canadian Archives Department of Ottawa.

The Province of Lower Canada continued the former lawâ€”in criminal matters, the English law, in civil matters the French law. It was not long before the status of the slave became a burning issue. At the first session of the first Parliament[1]of the new Province Lower Canada, Mr. P. L. Panet, a member of the House of Assembly, moved (January 28, 1793) for leave to introduce a bill for the abolition of slavery in the province and leave was unanimously given. On the twenty-sixth of February, Panet introduced a bill pursuant to leave given, and it was read in French and in English. On the eighth of March, Mr. B. Panet proposed the first reading of the bill and it was so read. On the nineteenth of April Mr. P. L. Panet moved that the bill be taken into consideration by the Committee of the Whole on the following Tuesday. The motion was debated and Mr. Debonne moved an amendment to table the bill, which was carried 31 to 3.[2]There was no further effort toward legislative dealing with slavery until 1799.[3]

The sale of Negroes continued as indicated by therecords.[4]On the twelfth of May, 1794, Francois Boucher de la PÃ©riÃ¨re and Marie Pecaudy de Contrecoeur, his wife, gave liberty to James, their Negro slave, aged 21 years, on condition that he should live in the most remote parts of the upper country. If, however, he left those parts, he should return to slavery. On the fifteenth of December, 1795, Frs. DumÃ³ulin, merchant of Bout de l'ile sold to Myer Michaels, merchant, a mulatto named Prince, aged 18 years, for the price of 50 louis.

On the sixteenth of January, 1796 there was found a bill of sale of a female Negro slave named Rose, dated January 15, 1794, the vendor being P. Byrne, the purchaser Simon Meloche, for the price of 360 shillings, deposited with the Notary J. P. Delisle. On the third of September John Shuter by notarial act promised his Negro, Jack, to give him his liberty in six years, if, in the meantime, he served him faithfully. Later, on November 2, 1803, Shuter declared that Jack had fulfilled his obligation, and he accordingly emancipated him. On the thirteenth of September, J. B. Routier, merchant of the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, sold to Louis Charles Foucher, Solicitor-General of His Majesty, Jean Louis, a mulatto, aged 27 years, height 5' 10", the price being 1300 shillings. Routier declared that he had bought Jean Louis as well as his mother at the Island of Saint-Domingue in 1778. On the twenty-third of November CÃ©sar, a free Negro of New London, Connecticut, engaged for ten years as a domestic to Dr. John Aussem, living in the Faubourg Saint Antoine, with a salary of 30 louis in advance. Dr. Aussem reserved to himself the right to sell the services of his domestic to whomsoever he pleased during the ten years.

On the twenty-fifth of May, 1797 Dame Marie-Catherine Tessier, Widow of Antoine Janisse, in his lifetime a voyager,liberated her slave Marie Antoine de Pade, an Indian, aged 23 years, in recognition of her services which she had rendered her, and in addition gave her a trousseau. On the twenty-fifth of August Thomas Blaney, gold painter, sold to Thomas John Sullivan, hotel-keeper of Montreal, the Negro Manuel about 33 years old for 36 louis, payable in monthly instalments of three louis each. On the same date and before the same notary, Sullivan promised the slave to liberate him in 5 years, if he served him faithfully. On the twenty-second of November George Westphall, formerly Lieutenant of the 6th Regiment, who owed 20 louis to Richard Dillon, proprietor of the Montreal Hotel in security for payment, delivered to his creditor a mulatress, a slave called Ledy, aged 26 years. She was to work with Mr. Dillon until he was repaid what was owed him by Westphall for principal and interest.

In the year 1793, there came up in the Court of Appeal at Quebec a case involving slavery but nothing was really decided. The plaintiff Jacob Smith sued Peter McFarlane in the Court of Common Pleas for taking away his wife and her clothes and detaining them. McFarlane claimed that Smith's wife was his slave. The Court of Common Pleas gave the plaintiff judgment for Â£100 and McFarlane appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court pointed out that it was for McFarlane to prove that Smith's wife was his slave and that he had not done so: but as there had been error in the proceedings the case was sent back to be retried. It is important to notice that the court considered that if McFarlane could prove that Smith's wife was his slave, he had the right to take her away.[5]

A lawsuit also arose over the Negro Manuel (Allen) sold August 25, 1797, to Thomas John Sullivan. When Blaney sold him for Â£36 Sullivan paid down only half and the balance with interest Â£30.15.2 was sued for in the Court of King's Bench at Montreal in 1798. Sullivan pleaded that Manuel was not the plaintiff's slave but a free Negroand that he had run away March, 1798, at Montreal where he continued to be: and Sullivan claimed to be reimbursed the Â£18 which he had paid. On the sixth of October Manuel himself came into the suit and claimed that "by the laws of this land he is not a slave but a freeman." Evidence was given that he had absconded from Sullivan's service alleging as a reason that he was a freeman, "that other blacks were free and that he wanted to be free also." In February, 1799, the court held that no title or right to sell Manuel has been shown and dismissed the action directing the return of the Â£18.[6]

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 Â£80 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 themagistrates. 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 madeconcerning slavery. Perhaps the wisdom of this house proved insufficient to devise any "provision convenable."

The next year another petition was brought in by Papineau from certain inhabitants of the District of Montreal saying that doubts had been entertained how far property in Negroes and Panis was sustainable under the laws of the province. They cited Raudot's ordinance, the recognition of slavery for years, and stated that in a recent case the Court of King's Bench at Montreal in discharging a slave of Mr. Fraser's who had been committed to the house of correction by three justices of the peace, had expressed the opinion that the Act of 1797[13]had repealed all the laws concerning slavery. They asked that the House should pass an act declaring that with certain restrictions slavery did exist in the province and investing the owners with full property in the slave; and that this chamber should also pass such laws and regulations in the matter as should be thought advisable.[14]

The petition on motion of Messrs. Papineau and Black was referred to a committee of five, Papineau, Grant, Craigie, Cuthbert and Dumas. The committee reported and Cuthbert introduced on April 30, 1800, a bill to regulate the condition of slaves, to limit the term of their slavery and to prevent further introduction of slavery in the province. The bill passed the second reading and was referred to the Committee of the Whole, but got no further. The next year Cuthbert introduced a similar bill with the same result, and again in 1803. The reason for the failure of these attempts was that any legislation on slavery would in view of the decisions of the courts be reactionary and change for the worse the condition of the slave.

The most celebrated of these decisions was in the caseof Robin,aliasRobert, a black. James Fraser, a Loyalist of the colony of New York, became the owner of Robin a Negro man in 1773, before the American Revolution. The colonies were successful and provisional articles of peace were signed November 30, 1782. Congress proclaimed them April 11, 1783 and it was almost inevitable that they would become a permanent and definitive treaty. Article VII provided for the speedy evacuation by the British forces of territory to be allotted to the United States of America "without carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants." There was allowed full time for everyone who desired to live under the British flag to leave New York. James Fraser made up his mind to go to Nova Scotia and obtained a pass from William Walton, the Magistrate of Police of the city, for his slave Robin and another, Lydia, September 23, 1783.[15]Fraser went to Shelborne, Nova Scotia, and the following year in September he went to "the Island of St. John,"[16]accompanied by Robin who was and acknowledged himself to be Fraser's property. Afterwards Fraser brought him to the Current of Saint Mary near the city of Montreal where Fraser became a farmer. Robin, infected with the pernicious doctrines of freedom then rather prevalent left Fraser, March 19, 1799, and went to live with Richard, a tavern keeper in Montreal. Fraser laid an Information before Charles Blake, a justice of the peace, and January 31, 1800, Charles Blake, Robert Jones and James Dunlop, justices of the peace of the District of Montreal committed Robin to the "Common Gaol and House of Correction at Montreal" with a warrant to Jacob Kuhn "Keeper of HisMajesty's Jail and House of Correction" to receive "a negroman named Robert who refuses to go home to his owner and him safely to keep till he may be discharged or otherwise dealt with according to law."

In the February Term 1800 of the Court of King's Bench for the District of Montreal[17]Mr. A. Perry, his advocate, obtained a writ of habeas corpus and on the tenth of February the black was produced in court. Mr. Perry for the black and Mr. Kerr for James Fraser presented their arguments upon this day and on the thirteenth of February, and after consideration and consultation the court five days later ordered the discharge of Robin alias Robert from his confinement under the warrant.[18]

The decision proceeded on the ground that the Act of 1797 which repealed the provision for the sale of Negroes to answer a judgment had revoked all the laws concerning slavery. Remembering that the Act of 1732 was intended to change the common law of England which did not allow the sale of land under a writ of execution, fieri facias, it should probably be considered that the sole effect of the repeal of the act as regards Negroes was to exempt them from sale under fieri facias, without affecting their status. And it is well known that slavery continued in the West India Islands and in Upper Canada long after the Act of 1797.

The effect of the decisions while not technically abolishing slavery rendered it innocuous. The slave could not be compelled to serve longer than he would, and the burden of slavery was rather on the master who must support his slave than on the slave who might leave his master at will. The legislature refusing to interfere, the law of slavery continued in this state until the year 1833 when the Imperial Parliament passed the celebrated act which forever abolished slavery in British Colonies from and after August 1, 1834.[19]

As Lower Canada passed no legislation on slavery, the extradition of fugitives was made impossible and Canada became therefore an asylum for the oppressed in the United States. Before the Act of 1833 there was one instance of a request from the Secretary of State of the United States for the delivery up of a slave. The matter was referred to the Executive Council by Sir James Kempt, the Administrator of the Government.[20]The report of the ExecutiveCouncil shows the view held that "the Law of Canada does not admit a slave to be a subject of property."

At a meeting of the Executive Council of the Province of Lower Canada held at the Council Chamber in the Castle of St. Lewis, on Thursday, June 18, 1829, under Sir James Kempt, the Administrator of the Government, the following proceedings were had:

"Report of a Committee of the whole Council Present The Honble. the Chief Justice in the Chair, Mr. Smith, Mr. DeLery, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Cochran on Your Excellency's reference of a letter from the American Secretary of State requesting that Paul Vallard accused of having stolen a Mulatto Slave from the State of Illinois may be delivered up to the Government of the United States of America together with the Slave."May it please Your Excellency,"The Committee have proceeded to the consideration of the subject matter of this reference with every wish and disposition to aid the Officers of the Government of the United States of America in the execution of the laws of that dominion and they regret therefore the more that the present application cannot in their opinion be acceded to."In the former cases the Committee have acted upon the principle which now seems to be generally understood that whenever a crime has been committed and the perpetrator is punishable according to theLex Lociof the country in which it is committed, the country in which he is found may rightfully aid the police of the country against which the crime was committed in bringing the criminal to justiceâ€”and upon this ground have recommended that fugitives from the United States should be delivered up."But the Committee conceive that the crimes for which they are authorized to recommend the arrest of individuals who have fled from other Countries must be such as aremala in se, and are universally admitted to be crimes in every nation, and that the offence of the individual whose person is demanded must be such as to render him liable to arrest by the law of Canada as well as by the law of the United States."The state of slavery is not recognized by the law of Canada nor does the law admit that any man can be the proprietor of another."Every slave therefore who comes into the province is immediately free whether he has been brought in by violence or has entered it of his own accord; and his liberty cannot from thenceforth be lawfully infringed without some cause for which the law of Canada has directed an arrest."On the other hand, the Individual from whom he has been taken cannot pretend that the slave has been stolen from him in as much as the law of Canada does not admit a slave to be a subject of property."All of which is respectfully submitted to Your Excellency's Wisdom."[21]

"May it please Your Excellency,

"The Committee have proceeded to the consideration of the subject matter of this reference with every wish and disposition to aid the Officers of the Government of the United States of America in the execution of the laws of that dominion and they regret therefore the more that the present application cannot in their opinion be acceded to.

"In the former cases the Committee have acted upon the principle which now seems to be generally understood that whenever a crime has been committed and the perpetrator is punishable according to theLex Lociof the country in which it is committed, the country in which he is found may rightfully aid the police of the country against which the crime was committed in bringing the criminal to justiceâ€”and upon this ground have recommended that fugitives from the United States should be delivered up.

"But the Committee conceive that the crimes for which they are authorized to recommend the arrest of individuals who have fled from other Countries must be such as aremala in se, and are universally admitted to be crimes in every nation, and that the offence of the individual whose person is demanded must be such as to render him liable to arrest by the law of Canada as well as by the law of the United States.

"The state of slavery is not recognized by the law of Canada nor does the law admit that any man can be the proprietor of another.

"Every slave therefore who comes into the province is immediately free whether he has been brought in by violence or has entered it of his own accord; and his liberty cannot from thenceforth be lawfully infringed without some cause for which the law of Canada has directed an arrest.

"On the other hand, the Individual from whom he has been taken cannot pretend that the slave has been stolen from him in as much as the law of Canada does not admit a slave to be a subject of property.

"All of which is respectfully submitted to Your Excellency's Wisdom."[21]

FOOTNOTES:[1]Under the Canada Act of 1791, the provinces had each a parliament or legislature, an upper house, the Legislative Council, of nominated members, not fewer than seven in Upper and not fewer than fifteen in Lower Canada, and a lower house, the House of Assembly, sometimes called the House of Commons elected by the people, not fewer than sixteen in Upper and not fewer than fifty in Lower Canada.[2]In the sister province a bill to the same effect was more fortunate in the same year a little later. This will be considered in the next chapter.[3]In a work of some authority, Bibaud'sPantheon Canadien, page 211, it is said that "Joseph Papineau, Notary Public, Member of the Legislature Assembly for Upper Quebec presented about 1797 a petition of the citizens of Montreal for the abolition of slavery." If that be the case there was nothing done on the petition, but it seems probable that the author refers to the petition of 1799 spoken of later in the Text.[4]From Massicotteut suprainLe Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, Vol. II, p. 136, it is said: "Une annonce publiÃ©e dans la Gazette de QuÃ¨bec vers: cette Ã©poque (i.e., 1797) represente un nÃ¨gre courant Ã toutes jambes. 'Il est offert une recompense honnÃªte a qui remenera a son maÃ®tre marchand de Trois RiviÃ¨res son esclave fugitif' Ce pauvre diable pensait sans doute que la loi qu'on proposait pourrait pas d'effet retroactif."[5]Lafontaineut supra, pp. 49-51.[6]Lafontaineut supra, pp. 52 & 56.[7]For the Act of 1732 (5 George II, c. 7). The repealing Act was (1797) 37 George III, c. 119 (Imp.).[8]The Statute of 1562, 5 Elizabeth, c. 4, not repealed until 1814, 54 George III, c. 96 (Imp.).[9]See ante, p. 304.[10]Ibid., p. 305.[11]Ibid., p. 310.[12]"Ou qu'une loi puisse Ãªtre passÃ©e dÃ©clarant qu'il n'y a point d'esclavage dans la Province; ou telle autre provision concernant les esclaves que cette Chambre, dans sa sagesse, jugera convenable." The Act of 1799 providing for houses of correction (really the common gaol) was 39 George II, c. 6 (L. C.), and was to be in force for two years. It was amended and continued for four years by the Act (1802) 42 George III, c. 6 (L. C.) and again by (1806) 46 George III, c. 6 (L. C.), until January 1, 1810 when it expired.[13]See ante, note 7. The effect of this Act was probably not as stated. The slave of Mr. Fraser's was Robin alias Robert to be spoken ofinfra, page.[14]The two reasons given for the request are the familiar ones. The petitioners had paid large sums for the slaves who had left them and "they are all wholly convinced that that class of men really lazy leading an idle and abandoned life would attempt to commit crime."[15]The definitive treaty was in fact signed September 3, 1783, but not ratified by Congress until January 14, 1784. The armistice had been concluded January 20, 1783. In the definitive treaty, Article VII contains the same provisions as to Negroes as the corresponding article in the preliminary articles.[16]Isle St. Jean so called from about the end of the sixteenth century until 1798, when it was given the name Prince Edward Island out of compliment to Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (father of Queen Victoria), then commanding the British Forces in North America. The name it still retains.[17]The Judges were James Monk, Chief Justice and Pierre Louis Panet and Isaac Ogden, Puisne Justices.[18]Lafontaine ut supra, pp. 56-63. It has often been said that it was Chief Justice Osgoode who gave the death blow to slavery in Lower Canada. For example, in James P. Taylor'sCardinal facts of Canadian History, Toronto, 1899, on p. 88 we find a statement that in 1803, Chief Justice Osgoode in Montreal declared slavery inconsistent with the laws of Canada. But Osgoode became Chief Justice of the Province in July, 1794. Continuing as such Chief Justice, he became Chief of the Court of King's Bench for the District of Quebec later on in the same year on the coming into force of the Act of 1794, 34 George III, c. 6, which erected two Courts of King's Bench one for each District. James Monk became Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench for the District of Montreal, which position he retained until 1825. Osgoode resigned his position and went to England in 1801 and lived in England until his death in 1824: he was never Chief Justice at Montreal.[19]One result of these decisions was to induce the escape of Negro slaves from Upper Canada where slavery was lawful to Lower Canada. For example one hears of two of the three slaves whom Captain Allan brought with him into Upper Canada from New Jersey running away to Montreal. The owner pursued them to Montreal and searched for them in vain for ten days. The third slave, a woman, he sold with her child.The Statute is (1833) 3, 4, William IV, c. 73 (Imp.). One result of this Act is exceedingly curious and to the philosophical lawyer exceedingly interesting. Slaves which had been real estate, as soon as the act was passed ceased to be such, and the benefit to be obtained from their labor until fully enfranchised and the money to be paid by the legislature as compensation for their freedom became personal estate. See the luminous judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Richardv.Attorney General of Jamaica, Moore'sReport of Cases in the Judicial Committee(1848), Vol. 6, p. 381.In a note on p. 35 of a paper in theTransactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 1900, onLa Declaration de 1732M. L'AbbÃ© Auguste Gosselin, Litt.D., F.R.S., Can., we read:"On trouve dans le livre de Mgr. TanguayA travers les Registres, p. 157, une notice sur l'Esclavage au Canada, avec un 'Tableau des familles possÃ©dant des esclaves de la nation des Panis' L'esclavage ne fut definitivement aboli par une loi, en Canada, qu'en 1833."The learned author does not mean that there was legislation on slavery in Canada in 1833, or that it was Canadian legislation which abolished slavery; for such was not the case.[20]From September 8, 1828, to October 19, 1830.[21]Canadian Archives, State K, p. 406.

[1]Under the Canada Act of 1791, the provinces had each a parliament or legislature, an upper house, the Legislative Council, of nominated members, not fewer than seven in Upper and not fewer than fifteen in Lower Canada, and a lower house, the House of Assembly, sometimes called the House of Commons elected by the people, not fewer than sixteen in Upper and not fewer than fifty in Lower Canada.

[2]In the sister province a bill to the same effect was more fortunate in the same year a little later. This will be considered in the next chapter.

[3]In a work of some authority, Bibaud'sPantheon Canadien, page 211, it is said that "Joseph Papineau, Notary Public, Member of the Legislature Assembly for Upper Quebec presented about 1797 a petition of the citizens of Montreal for the abolition of slavery." If that be the case there was nothing done on the petition, but it seems probable that the author refers to the petition of 1799 spoken of later in the Text.

[4]From Massicotteut suprainLe Bulletin des Recherches Historiques, Vol. II, p. 136, it is said: "Une annonce publiÃ©e dans la Gazette de QuÃ¨bec vers: cette Ã©poque (i.e., 1797) represente un nÃ¨gre courant Ã toutes jambes. 'Il est offert une recompense honnÃªte a qui remenera a son maÃ®tre marchand de Trois RiviÃ¨res son esclave fugitif' Ce pauvre diable pensait sans doute que la loi qu'on proposait pourrait pas d'effet retroactif."

[5]Lafontaineut supra, pp. 49-51.

[6]Lafontaineut supra, pp. 52 & 56.

[7]For the Act of 1732 (5 George II, c. 7). The repealing Act was (1797) 37 George III, c. 119 (Imp.).

[8]The Statute of 1562, 5 Elizabeth, c. 4, not repealed until 1814, 54 George III, c. 96 (Imp.).

[9]See ante, p. 304.

[10]Ibid., p. 305.

[11]Ibid., p. 310.

[12]"Ou qu'une loi puisse Ãªtre passÃ©e dÃ©clarant qu'il n'y a point d'esclavage dans la Province; ou telle autre provision concernant les esclaves que cette Chambre, dans sa sagesse, jugera convenable." The Act of 1799 providing for houses of correction (really the common gaol) was 39 George II, c. 6 (L. C.), and was to be in force for two years. It was amended and continued for four years by the Act (1802) 42 George III, c. 6 (L. C.) and again by (1806) 46 George III, c. 6 (L. C.), until January 1, 1810 when it expired.

[13]See ante, note 7. The effect of this Act was probably not as stated. The slave of Mr. Fraser's was Robin alias Robert to be spoken ofinfra, page.

[14]The two reasons given for the request are the familiar ones. The petitioners had paid large sums for the slaves who had left them and "they are all wholly convinced that that class of men really lazy leading an idle and abandoned life would attempt to commit crime."

[15]The definitive treaty was in fact signed September 3, 1783, but not ratified by Congress until January 14, 1784. The armistice had been concluded January 20, 1783. In the definitive treaty, Article VII contains the same provisions as to Negroes as the corresponding article in the preliminary articles.

[16]Isle St. Jean so called from about the end of the sixteenth century until 1798, when it was given the name Prince Edward Island out of compliment to Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (father of Queen Victoria), then commanding the British Forces in North America. The name it still retains.

[17]The Judges were James Monk, Chief Justice and Pierre Louis Panet and Isaac Ogden, Puisne Justices.

[18]Lafontaine ut supra, pp. 56-63. It has often been said that it was Chief Justice Osgoode who gave the death blow to slavery in Lower Canada. For example, in James P. Taylor'sCardinal facts of Canadian History, Toronto, 1899, on p. 88 we find a statement that in 1803, Chief Justice Osgoode in Montreal declared slavery inconsistent with the laws of Canada. But Osgoode became Chief Justice of the Province in July, 1794. Continuing as such Chief Justice, he became Chief of the Court of King's Bench for the District of Quebec later on in the same year on the coming into force of the Act of 1794, 34 George III, c. 6, which erected two Courts of King's Bench one for each District. James Monk became Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench for the District of Montreal, which position he retained until 1825. Osgoode resigned his position and went to England in 1801 and lived in England until his death in 1824: he was never Chief Justice at Montreal.

[19]One result of these decisions was to induce the escape of Negro slaves from Upper Canada where slavery was lawful to Lower Canada. For example one hears of two of the three slaves whom Captain Allan brought with him into Upper Canada from New Jersey running away to Montreal. The owner pursued them to Montreal and searched for them in vain for ten days. The third slave, a woman, he sold with her child.The Statute is (1833) 3, 4, William IV, c. 73 (Imp.). One result of this Act is exceedingly curious and to the philosophical lawyer exceedingly interesting. Slaves which had been real estate, as soon as the act was passed ceased to be such, and the benefit to be obtained from their labor until fully enfranchised and the money to be paid by the legislature as compensation for their freedom became personal estate. See the luminous judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Richardv.Attorney General of Jamaica, Moore'sReport of Cases in the Judicial Committee(1848), Vol. 6, p. 381.In a note on p. 35 of a paper in theTransactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 1900, onLa Declaration de 1732M. L'AbbÃ© Auguste Gosselin, Litt.D., F.R.S., Can., we read:"On trouve dans le livre de Mgr. TanguayA travers les Registres, p. 157, une notice sur l'Esclavage au Canada, avec un 'Tableau des familles possÃ©dant des esclaves de la nation des Panis' L'esclavage ne fut definitivement aboli par une loi, en Canada, qu'en 1833."The learned author does not mean that there was legislation on slavery in Canada in 1833, or that it was Canadian legislation which abolished slavery; for such was not the case.

The Statute is (1833) 3, 4, William IV, c. 73 (Imp.). One result of this Act is exceedingly curious and to the philosophical lawyer exceedingly interesting. Slaves which had been real estate, as soon as the act was passed ceased to be such, and the benefit to be obtained from their labor until fully enfranchised and the money to be paid by the legislature as compensation for their freedom became personal estate. See the luminous judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Richardv.Attorney General of Jamaica, Moore'sReport of Cases in the Judicial Committee(1848), Vol. 6, p. 381.

In a note on p. 35 of a paper in theTransactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 1900, onLa Declaration de 1732M. L'AbbÃ© Auguste Gosselin, Litt.D., F.R.S., Can., we read:

"On trouve dans le livre de Mgr. TanguayA travers les Registres, p. 157, une notice sur l'Esclavage au Canada, avec un 'Tableau des familles possÃ©dant des esclaves de la nation des Panis' L'esclavage ne fut definitivement aboli par une loi, en Canada, qu'en 1833."

The learned author does not mean that there was legislation on slavery in Canada in 1833, or that it was Canadian legislation which abolished slavery; for such was not the case.

[20]From September 8, 1828, to October 19, 1830.

[21]Canadian Archives, State K, p. 406.

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 thejus vitÃ¦ necisqueover 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 thembrought 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-speakingpeoples, 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]Theargument 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 manumissionsinter 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 whenMichigan 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 Riverde jureand to the Mississippide 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 Mississaguaswho 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 Canadade 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 findthat "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, theGazetteat 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 theGazette and Oracleof 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 threeyears 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 February5, 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 theUpper Canada Gazetteof 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 theHerald: "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 mywritten consent will be taken as offending and dealt with accordingly."[32]

There was always a demand for good slaves. For example, in theGazette and Oracleof 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 theNiagara Heraldadvertised 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, theNiagara Heraldproclaimed 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 livrÃ© au Sieur Labadie, une esclave Paniese[37]nommÃ©e Mannon pour et en considÃ©ration de la quantitÃ© de quatre-vingt minots[38]de BlÃ© de froment qu'il doit me payerÃ mesure qu'il aura au printemps prochain, donnÃ© sous ma main au Detroit ce dixiÃ¨me jour d'Octobre, 1775.(SignÃ©) James Sterling[39]Temoin(SignÃ©) 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 whohad 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 thename of Brown. She continued a slave until the fall of Richmond and died in 1869 or 1870.[46]

Back to Index Next