About baptism of ſlaves "borne in the houſe, or bought with monie," see letter of Davenport to the younger Winthrop, June 14, 1666, and poſtscript. M. H. S. Coll. iii., x., 60. 62.
Mr. Palfrey gives it as his opinion, that "From the reverence entertained by the Fathers of New England for the nuptial tie, it is ſafe to infer that ſlave huſbands and wives were never parted." Hiſt. N. E., ii., 30, note. The Fathers of New England alſo cheriſhed a due regard for parental and filial duties and reſponſibilities, yet it is certain that ſlave mothers and children were ſeparated. Reſting upon "the law of God, eſtabliſhed in Iſrael," the Puritan could have had no ſcruple about this matter—ſuch a condition of marriage to the ſlave muſt have been regarded as an axiom as it was by the Hebrew. Compare Exodus, xxo., 4, 5, 6. Mr. Palfrey's inference is not warranted by the facts.
In 1786, the legiſlature of the State of Maſſachuſetts paſſed an "Act for the orderly Solemnization of Marriage," by the ſeventh ſection whereof it was enacted "that no person authorized by this act to marry ſhall join in marriage any white perſon with any Negro, Indian or Mulatto, under penalty of fifty pounds; and all ſuch marriages ſhall be abſolutely null and void." The prohibition continued until 1843, when it was repealed by a ſpecial "act relating to marriage between individuals of certain races."
The statute of 1705 alſo provided an import duty of four pounds per head on every Negro brought into the Province from and after the 1st day of May, 1706, for the payment of which both the veſſel and maſter
