In 1745, a negro ſlave obtained from the Governor and Council a divorce for his wife's adultery with a white man. In 1758, it was adjudged by the Superior Court of Judicature, that a child of a female ſlave 'never married according to any of the forms preſcribed by the laws of this land,' by another ſlave, who ‘had kept her company with her maſter's conſent,’ was not a baſtard." Quincy's Reports, 30, note. This judgment indicates liberal views with regard to the law of marriage as applied to ſlaves, although we ſuſpect there was ſpecial occaſion for the exerciſe of charity and mercy which might deprive it of any authority as a leading caſe.
It is perfectly well known that it was practically ſettled in Maſſachuſetts that baptiſm was not emancipation—although there is no evidence in their ſtatutes to ſhow that the queſtion was ever mooted in that colony, as it was in other colonies, where legiſlation was found neceſſary to eſtabliſh the doctrine.
Still it was in the power of maſters in Maſſachuſetts to deny baptiſm to their ſlaves, as appears from the following extract, from Matthias Plant to the Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Goſpel, etc. Anſwers to Queries, from Newbury, October 25, 1727:
"6. Negroe Slaves, one of them is deſirous of baptiſm, but denied by her Maſter, a woman of wonderful ſenſe, and prudent in matters, of equal knowledge in Religion with moſt of her ſex, far exceeding any of her own nation that ever yet I heard of."
ſerved in looking over the old record of "Entryes for Publications" (for marriages) within the town of Boſton, two in the year 1707, and two in 1710.
