considering the reimbursements of other colonies; but this fact may possibly be regarded as proof that slave labor was not very remunerative in the Bahamas.1

The presence of the American refugees affected more or less the social conditions in the Bahamas, for the newcomers soon outnumbered the older inhabitants, and they introduced their own conceptions of plantation life and of the relations of master and slave. Many of the new whites were persons of energy, and we have McKinnen's word for it that the blacks in general possessed "more spirit and execution' than those in the southern parts of the West Indies. The planters assigned the various tasks to their negroes, daily and individually" according to their strength; and if the latter were so diligent as to have finished their labors at an early hour, the rest of the day was allowed them for amusement or their private concerns. Another feature that tended to soften the system of slavery in the islands was the absence of the overseer from most of the estates. The master usually acted as his own superintendent; and it rarely happened, therefore, according to McKinnen, that the negroes were so much subject to the discipline of the whip as was the case where the gangs were large, and the direction of them was entrusted to agents or overseers. It was, nevertheless, true that some planters were brutal, that female slaves as well as males were sometimes flogged, and that masters "had the right practically to punish their slaves at their own discretion," without being held accountable for their acts of cruelty."

The immigration to the Bahamas probably trebled the number of blacks, and raised the relative majority of blacks over whites by more than twenty per cent. It is not surprising, therefore, that the stringency of the laws regulating slaves should have been increased. The sentiments and fears of the ruling class, which arose out of the changed situation, appear in the legislation enacted by the General Assembly of the colony in 1784. This legislation provided for the punishment of assault on a white by a slave with death; it provided that other abuse of a white person

I. Northcroft, Sketches of Summerland, 292.

2. Edwards, West Indies, Vol. IV, Ap., 358; Northcroft, Sketches of Summerland, 285.

should be atoned for by a fine of £15, or by corporal punishment, not limited in amount or character; it provided that "whites could disarm not only slaves but also free coloured persons whom they found at large with arms in their hands;" it imposed a tax of £90 on any one manumitting a bondman, and gave validity to the evidence of slaves against manumitted persons in all trials for capital or criminal offenses; while against white persons only Christian negroes, mulattos, mustees, or Indians were allowed to testify at all, and they only in suits for debt.'

In 1796 it was enacted that slave owners should endeavor to instruct their slaves in the Christian religion, and have those baptized who could be made sensible of a Deity and of the Christian faith; but as there was only one clergyman in the entire colony at that time it is not likely that many slaves were baptized.2

Inasmuch as planters were sometimes annoyed by the escape of their slaves, it was customary to offer private rewards for the return of the runaways. We are told that hardly an issue of the Bahama Gazette appeared in 1794 and 1795 that did not give notice of the escape of a fugitive. At length an epidemic of escapes into the interior occurred in the small island of New Providence, and a law was passed ordering the registration of all free negroes, mulattoes, mustees, and Indians, and providing that if at any time five or more runaways were reported, free negroes might be sent in pursuit of them. Colored freemen were promised rewards for the arrest and delivery of runaways, and were allowed to kill a fugitive slave, if necessary, in order to defend themselves from his attack.3

Slaves were excluded from service in the local militia. So, also, were free blacks until the year 1804. After that time, prejudice served as a sufficient bar against the exercise of this right until after emancipation was declared. Much the same restrictions held in regard to jury service by negroes during the same period.

By a statute of 1805, the trial of all suits relating to the freedom of slaves was confined to the highest tribunal in the colony, I. Geographical Society of Baltimore, The Bahama Islands, 449, 450, 451, 456; Northcroft, Sketches in Summerland, 288.

2.

Northcroft, Sketches in Summerland, 288.

3. Geographical Society of Baltimore, The Bahama Islands, 453.
4. Ibid., 448.

namely, the General Court. As that body sat only in the island of New Providence, it was necessary to provide that in the case of the Out-islands a magistrate could require a master, on sufficient evidence, either to surrender his claim of ownership to the alleged slave, or pay the expense of sending the latter to Nassau for trial before the court specified. If the claimant secured judgment, he could bring another suit for damages, as well as for wages, for the time he had been held in bondage.1

Meanwhile, the planters of the Bahamas were already suffering from crop failures, and were deeply concerned over the uncertainty of the tenure of the lands which they held. After 1807 the foreign slave trade could no longer be carried on openly in the islands, and a few years later residents were claiming that their slaves had lost a quarter of the value which they possessed during the first decade of the nineteenth century. Under these circumstances, it was but natural that the slave owners, especially the refugees from the Southern states, should oppose the attempts of the English Parliament to get the colony to adopt laws for the amelioration of the condition of the blacks. These American refugees had been brought up in an atmosphere of slavery; they had been accustomed to dealing with it in their own way; and they were averse to any interference with it, especially any interference which they believed to be ruinous to their property rights, and conducive, as they alleged, to slave insurrections. The Bahama Assembly took its stand from the first against the successive measures recommended by the British government and supported by the local government. Thus a struggle began in the islands in 1815 that continued for nearly fifteen years. This struggle started with a controversy over the need of the registration of the slaves, the House of Assembly maintaining that registration was wholly inexpedient and would prove disastrous to the islands.2

This situation was greatly aggravated by an incident in which the attorney-general of the colony, William Wylly, a Georgia loyalist, figured so prominently that it has been designated "the Wylly affair." This incident aroused such feeling between the local legislature on the one hand and the local governI. Geographical Society of Baltimore, The Bahama Islands, 451. Ibid, 430, 433, 440-445.

2.

ment on the other that legislation in regard to the registration of the slaves was precluded for a term of four years. In 1816, Attorney-General Wylly brought action to prevent a master's removal of his three negroes from New Providence to Georgia, on the ground that the slaves had been imported since the abolition of the slave trade. Two of the slaves were restored to their owner, but the third was not. The House of Assembly objected to the conduct of the Attorney-General, and also to his opinion in favor of the use of licenses and bonds for removals under the imperial statute of 1806. Its hostility was further aroused by the rumor that Mr. Wylly was in correspondence with an anti-slavery society in London, called the African Institution, which he was alleged to be keeping informed as to the colony's attitude on the question of registration.

Having determined to investigate the Attorney-General's conduct, the House undertook to summon him before a committee, only to receive an answer which it considered contemptuous. A messenger, who was sent to arrest him, was resisted by armed slaves on Mr. Wylly's premises. Outraged at this, the House next asked Governor Cameron to suspend the Attorney-General from office, and again attempted his arrest. This time it was successful, but within an hour after his imprisonment he was released by order of the Chief Justice. The House now declared the action of the Court unconstitutional, and again ordered the arrest of the released prisoner; whereupon the Governor dissolved the House. If, a few days later, the action of that body. was unanimously approved by a public meeting at Nassau, the Governor had the satisfaction of receiving in due time the support of the home government. Nevertheless, the struggle was renewed by the next Assembly and its two successors.

At length, in 1818, the House passed a healing act" under the pacifying influence of a new executive, Major-General Lewis Grant; but also voted that it could not, consistently with its dignity, and never would, grant salaries to William Wylly and the Justice of the General Court for past services since the commencement of the dispute, or for any future services. It also reasserted its claim to superiority over the courts. The uncompromising

attitude of the House on these matters led to its dissolution in December, 1820. Thus, the House of Assembly spent four years in trying to override the other departments of the local government on account of the Wylly affair, and then finally adopted (1821) the system of registration for slaves.1

But the greater conflict was to occur over the demand for a programme of amelioration. According to this programme, which originated in Parliament and was urged by the Ministry, the flogging of female slaves was to cease; instruction was to be given to negroes in the principles of Christian morality and religion; the right to testify in courts of law was to be accorded them after they had been duly qualified to exercise such a right; the sacredness of the marriage tie was to be taught and fully protected; self-emancipation was to be encouraged, together with the accumulation of property by negroes, and too severe punishments were to be discouraged. The Bahama Assembly did not bring. itself to accept these reforms until the year 1824, when it enacted a new slave code which embodied only a part of them. In 1826, however, it supplemented the code by amendatory legislation, which included almost all of the recommendations of the British government. This legislation, we are informed, "contained practically all that the Bahamas ever conceded in the enactment of regulations for the amelioration of their slaves," although "a few minor points were added in 1829.”2 But, even yet, the provision against the flogging of female slaves had found no place in the new law.

In the year last named, Sir James Smyth was sent out as governor of the Bahama Islands. His first duty was to enforce the slave code, and thus accomplish the end at which the home government had been aiming through all the previous fifteen years. As he was himself an abolititionist, he had no desire to shirk his responsibility, although he hoped to secure the coöperation of the House of Assembly in the performance of his duty. However, he soon came into a clash with that body in his efforts to prevent the flogging of enslaved women. The House brought a number of charges against the Governor, including one of mal1. Geographical Society of Baltimore, The Bahama Islands, 433-440. 2. Ibid., 442, 445, 446-456.