In the old Court House, near which we are now passing, were assigned to convicted culprits, with unflinching severity and in a no inconsiderable number of instances, all the penalties enjoined in the criminal code of the day—the lash, the pillory, the stocks, the gallows. We have conversed with an old inhabitant of Toronto, who had not only here heard the penalty of branding ordered by the Judge, but had actually seen it in open court inflicted, the iron being heated in the great wood-stove that warmed the room, and the culprit made to stretch out his hand and have burnt thereon the initial letter of the offence committed.
Here cases came up repeatedly, arising out of the system of slavery which at the beginning was received in Canada, apparently as an inevitable part and parcel of the social arrangements of a colony on this continent.
On the first of March, 1811, we have it on the record, "William Jarvis, of the Town of York, Esq. (this is the Secretary again), 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." Thereupon it was "Ordered,—That the said negro boy, named Henry, commonly called Prince, be re-committed to prison, and there safely kept till delivered according to law, and that the girl do return to her said master; and Coachly be discharged."
At the date just mentioned Slavery was being gradually extinguished by an Act of the Provincial Legislature of Upper Canada, passed at Newark in 1793, which forbade the further introduction of slaves, and ordered that all slave children born after the 9th of July in that year should be free on attaining the age of twenty-five.
Most gentlemen, from the Administrator of the Government downwards, possessed some slaves. Peter Russell, in 1806, was anxious to dispose of two of his, and thus advertised in the Gazette and Oracle, mentioning his prices:—"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. They are each of them servants for life. The price of the woman is one hundred and fifty dollars. For the boy two hundred dollars, payable in three years, with interest from the day of sale, and to be secured by bond, &c. But one-fourth less will be taken for ready money. York, Feb. 19th, 1806. Peter Russell."
According to our ideas at the present moment, such an advertisement as this is shocking enough. But we must judge the words and deeds of men by the spirit of the age in which they lived and moved.
Similar notices were common a century since in the English newspapers. It is in fact asserted that at that period there were probably more slaves in England than in Virginia. In the London Public Advertiser, of March 28th, 1769, we have, for example, the following: "To be sold, a Black Girl, the property of J. B——, eleven years of age, who is extremely handy, works at her needle tolerably, and speaks English perfectly well; is of an excellent temper, and willing disposition. Enquire of Mr. Owen, at the Angel Inn, behind St. Clement's Church, in the Strand." And again, in the Edinburgh Evening Courant of April 18th, 1768, we have, "A Black Boy to sell. To be sold a Black Boy with long hair, stout made and well limbed; is good tempered; can dress hair, and take care of a horse indifferently. He has been in Britain near three years. Any person that inclines to purchase him may have him for £40. He belongs to Captain Abercrombie, at Brighton. This advertisement not to be repeated."
The poet sings—
"Slaves cannot breathe in England: if their lungs Receive our air, that moment they are free; They touch our country and their shackles fall."
But this was not true until Lord Mansfield, in 1772, uttered his famous judgment in the case of James Somerset, a slave brought over by a Mr. Stewart from Jamaica. Cowper's lines are in reality a versification of a portion of Lord Mansfield's words. A plea had been set up that villeinage had never been abolished by law in England; ergo, the possession of slaves was not illegal. But Lord Mansfield ruled: "Villeinage has ceased in England, and it cannot be revived. The air of England," he said, " has long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who breathes it. Every man who comes into England," Lord Mansfield continued, "is entitled to the protection of English law, whatever oppression he may heretofore have suffered, and whatever may be the colour of his skin: Quamvis ille niger, quamvis tu candidus esses. Let the negro be discharged." But this is a digression.