ng, 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. By the act of 1699 they were required to leave the colony
within six months after they had secured their liberty, on pain of
having to pay a fine of "ten pounds sterling to the church-wardens of
the parish;" which money was to be used in transporting the liberated
slave out of the country.[201] If slave women came in possession of
their freedom, the law sought them out, and required of them to pay
taxes;[202] a burden from which their white sisters, and even Indian
women, were exempt.

If free Colored persons in the colony ever had the right of franchise,
there is certainly no record of it. We infer, however, from the act of
1723, that previous to that time they had exercised the vot