The Journal of Negro History, Volume 5, 1920

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 £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.441

A lawsuit also arose over the Negro Manuel (Allen) sold August 25, 1797, to Thomas John Sullivan. When Blaney sold him for £36 Sullivan paid down only half and the balance with interest £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 Negro and that he had run away March, 1798, at Montreal where he continued to be: and Sullivan claimed to be reimbursed the £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 £18.442

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1797 the Imperial Act of 1732 for the sale of Negroes and other hereditaments for debt in the American Plantations was repealed so far as it related to Negroes443 but this made no difference in their status.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 £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 the magistrates. But this was because the statute in force at that time444 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 1709445 the Act of 1732,446 that of 1790,447 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.448 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 made concerning 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 1797449 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.450

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 case of Robin, alias Robert, 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, 1783.451 Fraser went to Shelborne, Nova Scotia, and the following year in September he went to "the Island of St. John,"452 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 His Majesty'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 Montreal453 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.454

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, 1834.455

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.456 The report of the Executive Council 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 the Lex Loci of 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 justice—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 are mala 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."457

CHAPTER V

Upper Canada—Early Period

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.458 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.459 At one time, indeed, it was understood in the English colonies that the master had the jus vitæ necisque over 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.460

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 them brought their slaves as well as their other property to the new land. The statute of 1790 encouraged this practice.461

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 White462 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.463

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."464

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-speaking peoples, 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.465

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,466 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.467 The argument 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 manumissions inter vivos468 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.469

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 when Michigan 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.470

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 River de jure and to the Mississippi de 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.471

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 Mississaguas who had a rendezvous on Carleton Island near Kingston. In the Detroit region there were many slaves, some of them Panis;472 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 Canada de jure. Omitting Detroit, the number of slaves in the province at the time of the Act of 1793 was probably not far from 500.473

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.474

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.475

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,476 Petersons, Allens, Clarks, Bowers, Thompsons, Meyers, Spencers, Perrys, Pruyns, speaking generally all the people of substance had their slaves.477

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.478 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 Spencer479 Esq. by Francis Green." We find that "Francis, son of Violet … by Francis Green as was supposed" was buried January 17, 1806.480