sions, which were well calculated to afford the servant absolute security in the enjoyment of every comfort that he could reasonably claim, were in operation during the remainder of the century, and if in any case he suffered, it was to be attributed to his own supineness and not to any deficiency in the law prescribing the remedy. How great was the solicitude of the General Court to ensure him the amplest protection in all of his rights, is shown in the order passed in 1679-80, which forbade a woman who had proved herself a cruel mistress to have servants in her employment.[1]
The fact that a youthful servant was disposed to run away was often accepted not as an indication of an incorrigible nature but of hard usage. A case of this kind occurred in Lower Norfolk about the middle of the century. A boy had frequently fled from his mistress, Mrs. Deborah Farneshaugh, seeking refuge in his last flight with a Mrs. Lambard. A complaint was filed in the local court in his behalf, and the judges directed that he should remain with Mrs. Lambard until Mrs. Farneshaugh should provide him with food, clothing, and other necessaries, of which it was declared that she had deprived him while in her service. A committee was appointed to enforce the order, and upon the continuation of her ill treatment, her right to hold the boy was summarily withdrawn.[2]
In the code adopted in 1705, which represented the
- ↑ General Court Orders, 1677-1682, Sept. 20, 1680, Robinson Transcripts, p. 265.
- ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1646-1651, f. p. 117.
County, entered a complaint with the justices of the peace that he was badly used by his master. Smith was ordered to remain under the protection of the constable, whilst a summons was issued requiring Brookes to appear before the court on the following day to justify his conduct. Vol. 1667-1662, p. 56, Va. State Library.
