00 to 1750, probably a million
and a half of souls, of whom one-eighth were buried in the
Atlantic, victims of the passage; and yet in England no
general indignation rebuked the enormity; for the public
opinion of the age was obedient to materialism."[367]

Humane masters who desired to emancipate their slaves were embarrassed
by a statute unfriendly to manumission. The Act of 1703[368] deterred
many persons from emancipating their slaves on account of its unjust
and hard requirements. And under it quite a deal of litigation arose.
It required every master who desired to liberate his slave, before
doing so, to furnish a bond to the treasurer of the town or place in
which he resided, in a sum not less than fifty pounds.[369] This was
to indemnify the town or place in case the Negro slave thus
emancipated should, through lameness or sickness, become a charge. In
case a master failed to furnish such security, his emancipated slaves
were still contemplated by the law as in bondage, "notwithstanding any
manumission or instrument of freedom to them made or given." Judge
Sewall, in a letter to John Adams, cites a case in point.

"A man, by will, gives his Negro his liberty, and leaves him
a legacy. The executor consents that the Negro shall be
free, but refuseth to give bond to the selectmen to
indemnify the town against any charge for his support in
case he should become poor (without which, by the province
law, he is not manumitted), or to pay him the legacy.

_Query_. Can he recover the legacy, and how?

I have just observed that in your last you desire me to say
something towards discouraging you from removing to
Providence; and you say, any thing will do. At present, I
only say, you will do well enough where you are. I will
explain myself, and add something further, in some future
letter. I have not time to enlarge now, for which I believe
you will not be inconsolably grieved. So, to put you out of
pain, your hearty friend,

JONATHAN SEWALL."[370]

Mr. Adams replied as follows:--

"Now. _En mesure le manner_. The testator intended plainly
that his negro should have his liberty and a legacy;
therefore the law will presume that he intended his executor
should do all that without which he could have neither. That
this indemnification was not in the testator's