_Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909_
(Toronto, 1911), pp. 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42.

[8] _Canadian Archives_, Q. 279, 2, p. 335.

White in his diary says "To the 21 June, some opposition in the House
not much"--under date June 25 when the Bill was in Committee of the
whole he says "Debated the Slave Bill hardly: Met much opposition but
little argument."

[9] Simcoe was almost certainly the prime mover in the legislation of
1793. When giving the royal assent to the bill he said: "The Act for
the gradual abolition of Slavery in this Colony, which it has been
thought expedient to frame, in no respect meets from me a more
cheerful concurrence than in that provision which repeals the power
heretofore held by the Executive Branch of the Constitution and
precludes it from giving sanction to the importation of slaves, and I
cannot but anticipate with singular pleasure that such persons as may
be in that unhappy condition which sound policy and humanity unite to
condemn, added to their own protection from all undue severity by the
law of the land may henceforth look forward with certainty to the
emancipation of their offspring." See _Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909_, pp.
42-43.

I do not understand the allusion to "protection from undue severity by
the Law of the land." There had been no change in the law, and undue
severity to slaves was prevented only by public opinion. It is
practically certain that no such bill as that of 1798 would have been
promoted with Simcoe at the head of the government as his sentiments
were too well known.

Vermont excluded slavery by her Bill of Rights (1777), Pennsylvania
and Massachusetts passed legislation somewhat similar to that of Upper
Canada in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784, New Hampshire by
her Constitution in 1792, Vermont in the same way in 1793; New York
began in 1799 and completed the work in 1827, New Jersey 1829.
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa were organized as a
Territory in 1787 and slavery forbidden by the Ordinance, July 13,
1787, but it was in fact known in part of the Territory for a score of
years. A few slaves were held in Michigan by tolerance until far into
the nineteenth century notwithstanding the prohibition of the
fundamental law (_Mich. Hist. Coll._, VII, p. 524). Maine as such
probably never had slavery, having separated from Massachusetts in
1820 after the Act of 1780; although it would seem that as late as
1833 the Supreme Court of Massachusetts le