Governor Bernard threw his influence on the side of slavery. In 1774 a
bill prohibiting the traffic in slaves passed both Houses; but Governor
Hutchinson withheld his assent and dismissed the Legislature. The
colored men sent a deputation of their own to the Governor to solicit his
consent to the bill; but he told them his instructions forbade him. A
similar committee waiting upon General Gage received the same answer.

In the year 1770 a servant of Richard Lechmere, of Cambridge, stimulated
by the general discussion of the slavery question and by the advice of
some of the zealous advocates of emancipation, brought an action against
his master for detaining him in bondage. The suit was decided in his
favor two years before the similar decision in the case of Somerset in
England. The funds necessary for carrying on this suit were raised among
the blacks themselves. Other suits followed in various parts of the
Province; and the result was, in every instance, the freedom of the
plaintiff. In 1773 Caesar Hendrick sued his master, one Greenleaf, of
Newburyport, for damages, laid at fifty pounds, for holding him as a
slave. The jury awarded him his freedom and eighteen pounds.

According to Dr. Belknap, whose answers to the queries on the subject,
propounded by Judge Tucker, of Virginia, have furnished us with many of
the facts above stated, the principal grounds upon which the counsel of
the masters depended were, that the negroes were purchased in open
market, and included in the bills of sale like other property; that
slavery was sanctioned by usage; and, finally, that the laws of the
Province recognized its existence by making masters liable for the
maintenance of their slaves, or servants.

On the part of the blacks, the law and usage of the mother country,
confirmed by the Great Charter, that no man can be deprived of his