s against slavery. On the 10th of March, 1755,
the town of Salem instructed their representative, Timothy Pickering,
to petition the General Court against the importation of slaves.[380]
The town of Worcester, in June, 1765, instructed their representative
to "use his influence to obtain a law to put an end to that
unchristian and impolitic practice of making slaves of the human
species, and that he give his vote for none to serve in His Majesty's
Council, who will use their influence against such a law."[381] The
people of Boston, in the month of May, 1766, instructed their
representatives as follows:--

"And for the total abolishing of slavery among us, that you
move for a law to prohibit the importation and the
purchasing of slaves for the future."[382]

And in the following year, 1767, on the 16th of March, the question
was put as to whether the town should adhere to its previous
instructions in favor of the suppression of the slave-trade, and
passed in the affirmative. Nearly all the towns, especially those
along the coast, those accessible by mails and newspapers, had
recorded their vote, in some shape or other, against slavery. The
pressure for legislation on the subject was great. The country members
of the Legislature were almost a unit in favor of the passage of a
bill prohibiting the further importation of slaves. The opposition
came from the larger towns, but the opposers were awed by the
determined bearing of the enemies of the slave-trade. The scholarship,
wealth, and piety of the colony were steadily ranging to the side of
humanity.

On the 13th of March, 1767, a bill was introduced in the House of
Representatives "to prevent the _unwarrantable and unlawful_ Practice
or Custom of inslaving Mankind in this Province, and the importation
of slaves into the same."[383] It was read the first time, when a
dilatory motion was offered that the bill lie over to the next
session, which was decided in the negative. An amendment was offered
to the bill, limiting it "to a certain time," which was carried; and
the bill made a special order for a second reading on the following
day. It was accordingly read on the 14th, when a motion was made to
defer it for a third reading to the next "May session." The friends of
the bill voted down this dilatory motion, and had the bill made the
special order of the following Monday,--it now being Saturday. On
Sunday there must have been considerable lobbying done,