early showed a glimmering sense of the moral character of the slave-trade. The fact is the tax was laid to enable the Colonial Government to obtain a share of the profits of the trade, and Newport streets were first paved out of the proceeds of that tax.
Moore, in his "Slavery in Massachusetts," points out that in 1701 the representatives from Boston were "desired [by the voters] to promote the encouraging the bringing of white servants, and to puta period to negroes being slaves." That looks like a real desire to abolish slavery, even though no legislation followed on the desire; but the truth is, the Boston voters were animated solely by business principles, as shall be pointed out in connection with similar legislation in New Jersey.
Moreover "the law of 1703 (two years later) chapter 2, was in restraint of the ‘Manumission, Discharge or Setting free' of 'Molatto or Negro slaves'."? The close-fisted slave-owners had begun "to manumit aged or infirm slaves, to relieve the master from the charge of supporting them."
In 1705 Massachusetts again enacted slaver laws. One clause of the bill imposed a tax of £4 on each slave imported. This looks something like a restraint of the trade, but a further examination of the act shows that it was "for the Better Preventing of a spurious or mixt Issue." It is shocking to learn that the young men of Puritan blood were so fond of the black Briseises. Another clause of the bill provided for an entire rebate of the tax if the slaves were exported after having been entered at the custom house. The act was really designed to enable the colony to share in the profits of the slave-trade, and
