an early part of my life, from 1762 to 1775, I passed much time
in going through the public records in Virginia, then in the
Secretary's office, and especially those of a very early date of our
settlement. In these are abundant instances of purchases made
by our first assemblies of the Indians living around them. The
opinion I formed at the time was, that, if the records were com-
plete and thoroughly searched, it would be found that nearly
the whole of the lower country was covered by these contracts.
Sometimes at the conclusion of a war, land would be ceded by
them as an indemnification, but I think there were few instances
of this. In general, the colony lived in peace with the Indians.
Their habitations touched one another, and the latter receded
gradually and peaceably. I do not know in what States the
public records are since the British invasion; but, if preserved,
the facts I state may be abundantly verified from them."

Thus far Mr. Jefferson. In Purvis's collection of the laws
of Virginia, there is an act, either passed or re-enacted in 1662,
which recites "that the laws prohibiting the purchase of any
Indian's lands (unless acknowledged at General Courts or As-
semblies, by reason it is easy to fright them to a public, as well
as a private acknowledgement) are made fruitless and inef-
fectual, corrupt interpreters often adding to this mischief by
rendering them willing to surrender, when indeed they intended
to receive a confirmation of their own rights, and a redress of
their wrongs; which mischiefs, had they continued, must needs
have involved the country in war, for remedy whereof it is
enacted, that for the future no Indian king, or other, shall upon
any pretence alien or sell; nor any English, for any cause or
consideration whatsoever, purchase or buy any tract or parcel
of land justly claimed or actually possessed by any Indian or
Indians whatever, all such bargains and sales thereafter made
or pretended to be made being thereby declared null and void."
And further," That what Englishman hath already, contrary to
the laws formerly in force for surrendering and acknowledging
Indians' lands, made incroachments or seated upon them, shall,
if they make not good proof of their title, upon complaint made,
be, by order directed to the sheriff to execute, removed from
their seats of lands thus wrongfully encroached, and all houses
by them built upon the said lands be demolished and burned."
The same act provides that the Indians' bounds should be fixed,

and thereafter annually visited, that no intrenchment might thenceforth be made upon the Indians. This act is, I presume, of a much earlier date than 1662, being one of 138 acts which appear to have been collected and republished, or re-enacted at that period.

By an act made in 1665, it appears that the boundaries of the Indians south of James River were limited by the southern branches of the Black-Water River, thence to the Appamatuck Indian town' (Petersburg), and thence cross the river to the Monakin Indian town (about fifteen miles above Richmond). This act refers to an agreement the date of which is not specified.

In 1676, the title of an act occurs, "concerning Indian lands deserted." This was during Bacon's usurpation. All the acts of this Assembly were declared null and void by proclamation, as also by a subsequent act of assembly passed in the same year.

In 1705, we find an act declaring that it shall not be lawful for any Indian king, or any other tributary Indians whatever, to bargain and sell, or demise to any person or persons, other than to some of their own nation, or their posterity in fee, for life or for years, the lands laid out and appropriated for the use of the said Indians, or any part or parcel thereof; or to bargain and sell, as aforesaid, any other land whatsoever, then actually possessed, or justly claimed and pretended to by the said Indians, or any of them, by virtue of the articles of peace made and concluded with the said Indians the 29th day of May, 1677, and every bargain, sale, or demise contrary to that act, is declared void. From the same act it appears that one of the articles of that treaty was, "that no English shall seat or plant nearer than three miles of any Indian town; but the act declares that this shall not be construed to prohibit the seating on the opposite side of a navigable river, though within three miles of an Indian town.

These acts throw but little light upon the subject of your enquiries. I thought, however, it might not be unacceptable to you to notice them. As I seldom visit Richmond, and, when I do, but for a few days, I fear it will not be in my power to make such researches into our public records as I could wish.

Be pleased to subscribe for the Collections of the Massachu

setts Historical Society in my behalf. We have nothing, in this
part of the continent, from the press, beyond newspaper essays.
I am, with the greatest respect and esteem, dear sir,
Your obliged friend and servant,

S. G. TUCKER.

Having just returned, I have not yet had time to dip into Minot's Continuation. Doctor Morse's Grammar, like all first attempts, has its errors; but even errors are useful, where they may lead to their own correction.

NEGRO PETITIONS FOR FREEDOM.

The recent Petition sent in by [torn]

To his Excellency Thomas Hutch[inson Gov]ernor of said Provnce, to the Honorable his Majestys Council, [and to the] Honourable House of Representatives in General Court assembled June 1773.

The Petition of us the subscribers in behalf of all thous who by divine Permission are held in a state of slavery, within the bowels of a free Country, Humbly sheweth,

That your Petitioners apprehend they have in comon with other men a naturel right to be free and without molestation to injoy such Property as thay may acquire by their industry, or by any other means not detrimetal to their fellow men, and that no person can have any just claim to their services unless

To his Excellency Thomas Gage Esq Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over this Province.

To the Honourable his Majestys Council and the Honourable House of Representatives in General Court assembled may 25 177—*

The Petition of a Grate Number of Blackes of this Province who by divine permission are held in a state of Slavery within the bowels of a free and christian Country

Humbly Shewing

That your Petitioners apprehind we have in common with all other men a naturel right to our freedoms without Being de

The last numeral has been altered once or twice, and looks a little like 7. But the heading of the petition would show that its date should be 1774. — EDS.

priv'd of them by our fellow men as we are a freeborn Pepel and have never forfeited this Blessing by aney compact or agreement whatever. But we were unjustly dragged by the cruel hand of power from our dearest frinds and sum of us stolen from the bosoms of our tender Parents and from a Populous Pleasant and plentiful country and Brought hither to be made slaves for Life in a Christian land. Thus are we deprived of every thing that hath a tendency to make life even tolerable, the endearing ties of husband and wife we are strangers to for we are no longer man and wife then our masters or mestreses thinkes proper marred or onmarred. Our children are also taken from us by force and sent maney miles from us wear we seldom or ever see them again there to be made slaves of for Life which sumtimes is vere short by Reson of Being dragged from their mothers Breest Thus our Lives are imbittered to us on these accounts By our deplorable situation we are rendered incapable of shewing our obedience to Almighty God how can a slave perform the duties of a husband to a wife or parent to his child How can a husband leave master and work and cleave to his wife How can the wife submit themselves to there husbands in all things. How can the child obey thear parents in all things. There is a grat number of us sencear members of the Church of Christ how can the master and the slave be said to fulfil that command Live in love let Brotherly Love contuner and abound Beare yea onenothers Bordenes How can the master be said to Beare my Borden when he Beares me down whith the Have chanes of slavery and operson against my will and how can we fulfill our parte of duty to him whilst in this condition and as we cannot searve our God as we ought whilst in this situation Nither can we reap an equal benefet from the laws of the Land which doth not justifi but condemns Slavery or if there had bin aney Law to hold us in Bondege we are Humbely of the Opinon ther never was aney to inslave our children for life when Born in a free Countrey. We therfor Bage your Excellency and Honours will give this its deu weight and consideration and that you will accordingly cause an act of the legislative to be pessed that we may obtain our Natural right our freedoms and our children be set at lebety at the yeare of Twenty one for whoues sekes more petequeley your Petitioners is in Duty ever to Pray.