Mr. Bancroft thinks that the “special tax upon female slaves"[145] was intended to discourage the traffic.  It does not so seem to us.  It seems that the Virginia Assembly was endeavoring to establish friendly relations with the Dutch and other nations in order to secure “trade.”  Tobacco was the chief commodity of the colonists.  They intended by the act[146] of March, 1659, to guarantee the most perfect liberty “to trade with” them.  They required, however, that foreigners should “give bond and pay the impost of tenn shillings per hogshead laid upon all tobacco exported to any fforreigne dominions.”  The same act recites, that whenever any slaves were sold for tobacco, the amount of imposts would only be “two shillings per hogshead,” which was only the nominal sum paid by the colonists themselves.  This act was passed several years before the one became a law that is cited by Mr. Bancroft.  It seems that much trouble had been experienced in determining who were taxable in the colony.  It is very clear that the LIV.  Act of March, 1662, which Mr. Bancroft thinks was intended to discourage the importation of slaves by taxing female slaves, seeks only to determine who shall be taxable.  It is a general law, declaring “that all male persons, of what age soever imported into this country shall be brought into lysts and be liable to the payment of all taxes, and all negroes, male and female being imported shall be accompted tythable, and all Indian servants male or female however procured being adjudged sixteen years of age shall be likewise tythable from which none shall be exempted."[147] Beverley says that “the male servants, and slaves of both sexes,” were employed together.  It seems that white women were so scarce as to be greatly respected.  But female Negroes and Indians were taxable; although Indian children, unlike those of Negroes, were not held as slaves.[148] Under the LIV.  Act there is but one class exempted from tax,—­white females, and, we might add, persons under sixteen years of age.[149] So what Mr. Bancroft mistakes as repressive legislation against the slave-trade is only an exemption of white women, and intended to encourage their coming into the colony.

The legal distinction between slaves and servants was, “slaves for life, and servants for a time."[150] Slavery existed from 1619 until 1662, without any sanction in law.  On the 14th of December, 1662, the foundations of the slave institution were laid in the old law maxim, “Partus sequitur ventrum,”—­that the issue of slave mothers should follow their condition.[151] Two things were accomplished by this act; viz., slavery received the direct sanction of statutory law, and it was also made hereditary.  On the 6th of March, 1655,—­seven years before the time mentioned above,—­an act was passed declaring that all Indian children brought into the colony by friendly Indians should not be treated as slaves,[152] but be instructed in the trades.[153] By implication,