[282] Elliott’s New-England Hist., vol. i. p. 383.

[283] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 278.

[284] Mass.  Hist.  Coll., vol. iv. 4th Series, p. 334.

[285] Quoted by Dr. Moore, p. 20.

[286] Commonwealth vs.  Aves, 18 Pickering, p. 208.

[287] Andover vs.  Canton, Mass.  Reports, 551, 552, quoted by Dr. Moore.

[288] Kendall’s Travels, vol. ii. p. 179.

[289] The following note, if it refers to the kidnapped Negroes, gives an earlier date,—­“29th May, 1644.  Mr. Blackleach his petition about the Mores was consented to, to be committed to the eld’rs, to enforme us of the mind of God herein, & then further to consider it.”—­Mass.  Records, vol. ii. p. 67.

[290] Bancroft, Centennial edition, vol. i. p. 137.

[291] Hildreth, vol. i. p. 282.

[292] The petition is rather a remarkable paper, and is printed below.  It is evident that the judge was in earnest.  And yet the court, while admitting the petition, tried the case on only one ground, man-stealing.

     To the honored general court.

The oath I took this yeare att my enterance upon the place of assistante was to this effect:  That I would truly endeavour the advancement of the gospell and the good of the people of this plantation (to the best of my skill) dispencing justice equally and impartially (according to the laws of God and this land) in all cases wherein I act by virtue of my place.  I conceive myself called by virtue of my place to act (according to this oath) in the case concerning the negers taken by captain Smith and Mr. Keser; wherein it is apparent that Mr. Keser gave chace to certaine negers; and upon the same day tooke divers of them; and at another time killed others; and burned one of their townes.  Omitting several misdemeanours, which accompanied these acts above mentioned, I conceive the acts themselves to bee directly contrary to these following laws (all of which are capitall by the word of God; and two of them by the lawes of this jurisdiction).

     The act (or acts) of murder (whether by force or fraude) are
     expressly contrary both to the law of God, and the law of
     this country.

The act of stealing negers, or taking them by force (Whether it be considered as theft or robbery) is (as I conceive) expressly contrary, both to the law of God, and the law of this country.

The act of chaceing the negers (as aforesayde) upon the sabbath day (being a servile worke and such as cannot be considered under any other heade) is expressly capitall by the law of God.

These acts and outrages being committed where there was noe civill government, which might call them to accompt, and the persons, by whom they were committed beeing of our jurisdiction, I conceive this court to bee the ministers of God in this case, and therefore my humble request is that