law doctrines, which the magiſtrates muſt have ſometimes found inconvenient in adminiſtration. The preamble to the Body of Liberties itſelf might have been conſtrued into ſome vague recognition of rights in individual members of ſociety ſuperior to legiſlative power—although it was promulgated by the poſſ]eſſors of the moſt arbitrary authority in the then actual holders of legiſlative and executive power. Compare Hurd's Law of Freedom and Bondage, i., 198. Had they only learned to reaſon as ſome of the modern writers of Maſſachuſetts hiſtory have done on this ſubject, the poor Indians and Negroes of that day might have compelled additional legiſlation if they could not vindicate their rights to freedom in the general court. For the firſt article of the Declaration of Rights in 1780, is only a new. edition of “the glittering and founding generalities” which prefaced the Body of Liberties in 1641. Under the latter, human ſlavery exiſted for nearly a century and a half without ſerious challenge, while under the former it is ſaid to have been aboliſhed by inference by a public opinion which ſtill continued to tolerate the ſlave-trade.
But to the law and the teſtimony. The ninety-firſt article of the Body of Liberties appears as follows, under the head of
"Liberties of Forreiners and Strangers.
"91. There ſhall never be any bond ſlaverie, villinage or captivitie amongſt us unles it be lawfull captives taken in juſt warres, and ſuch ſtrangers as willingly ſelle themſelves or are ſold to us. And theſe ſhall have all the liberties and Chriſtian uſages
