Servant or Slave" sufficient food, drink, lodging or clothing," the master could be fined for the first
and second offenses, and the servant or slave should be set free on a third offense.126

Despite this concern over the treatment of slaves, the legislature took steps to widen the gap
between the races. The lower house passed a stiff anti-miscegenation law which returned to the
principles of enslavement of any white woman who married a black for the life of her husband and
enslaving their issue. The Governor and Council responded that the law was too severe, suggesting
that the penalty for officiating at such marriages be increased "and that any white Man or Woman
that shall Beget or have Begotten a Bastard Child by a Negro shall be compelled to serve Seven years
only, and not during Life Contrary to the Laws of England, for the Benefit of the Poor of the
Parish."127 Mr. Dent and Mr. Clarke from the Lower House explained that the lower house's bill was
not contrary to English law. It never used the word slavery. Although requiring the woman to serve
during the life of her slave husband "may haply amount to Slavery in Effect, yet it is not the same
in Terminis, and may possibly prove otherwise so the Law of England is not Repugned."128 The
Upper House reponded that it still stuck at the severity of making a free white woman a slave for her
husband's life, and it insisted on the seven year term.129

The Governor and Council also rejected the enslavement of the children of a white woman.
"Imposing Slavery on the Children of White People is too Severe."130 Dent and Clarke responded
that illegitimate children of white women whose parents could not care for them were already bound
out until the age of 31, and the lower house conceived it "but reasonable to make a Distinction
between them and Negroes, and not to Equalize them in point of servitude."131 Again the Upper
House stuck to its guns, insisting on a limit for mulatto children of white women.

The final resolution was a comprehensive anti-miscegenation law. The Upper House
succeeded in preserving the white woman and her issue from slavery, but at the same time the law
enslaved the free negro who married her. Status no longer dominated the law; race became critical.
The 1692 statute made the "free bom English or white woman be she free or Servant" who married
"any negro or other Slave or any Negro made free" forfeit her freedom and become a servant "during
the Terme of seven years to the use and benefit of the Ministry of the Poor" (i.e. her service would
be sold and the proceeds used for the poor.) If the marriage was without the connivance of the
master, she was first required to finish her term of service for him. If he instigated the marriage, the
woman was freed from his service but still bound to serve for the benefit of the community. The
children of such marriages were bound to serve the Ministry of the Poor until the age of 21. Any free
negro marrying a white woman became a servant to the use of the Ministry of the Poor for the rest
of his life. The statute also dealt with the consequences of miscegenation outside wedlock.
Unmarried white women who had a child by a Negro also were punished by seven years service to
the ministry of the poor. If the father was a free negro he was compelled to serve seven years "to the
use aforesaid ... and all such Bastard children to be Servants ... until they arrive at the age of thirty
one years." The penalties inflicted on white women were made applicable to white men who "inter
marry with or beget with Child any negro woman,"132 but the records do not indicate that the
penalties were actually applied to white males.

23