From: Sharon Leonard 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:27 PM
  Subject: Executive Journals Vol III 


  ....In Vol. III, Executive Journals, Council of Colonial Virginia,
  pg 31 date about 1695  "Upon perusal of a Petition of John Bunch & Sarah
  Slayden..."  .... "It is ordered that the Petition of the said Bunch
  and Slayden be referred till next General Court for? to argue the reasons
  of his opinion before his excellency and ye Council."  Page 28: The
  Petition of John Bunch and Sarah Slayden praying that the minister of
  Blissland Parish may be ordered to publish the Banns..."

  The Attorney General did not consider John Bunch to be a Mulatto in the
  true meaning or sense of the word but rather the offspring of one white
  person and another mixed blood person, or "Mustee."

  I have not found any further court proceeding in the Executive Journals
  addressing the findings or arguments given in the above proceeding. ....  Sharon ....
  *****
It has been a long while since I studied this case, however I am rather sure that this was an ordinary appeal from a decision of the Parish Priest to the Attorney General of the Colony.  When a local Priest determined that a man or woman was "of color" and that person wanted to marry a white, the Priest had the authority to refuse to publish Banns, thus effectively blocking the marriage.  

When a Priest did so decide, the parties could appeal to the AG (it would not have been cheap), but they could not appeal directly to the law courts.  The opinions of AGs, then and now, are not law, however if the matter was an unusual one or of great gravity and effect on the society of the colony, the AG could certify a matter such as this to the full General Council for decision, which is exactly what happened here.  

The Priest decided the man was "of color", however slight, and thus was prohibited by Canon Law to publish Banns (whether he wanted to or not).  The AG decided the question was of such moment that the Council should hear it.  They did and ordered Banns (as I recall)

The Priest was bound by that ruling, unless he chose to appeal to the King in England, which he almost surely did not here. 

I would venture that the question was one of whether or not the man was part Indian, since had he been suspected of being part Black, there would have been no question in the  mind of the AG, and the Banns would have been prohibited.  What a thrill it would have been to hear that case when it was presented to the Council. 

It also is interesting that the couple had such a great desire that their marriage be founded in the Church of England that they did not go off and simply live together or have some other less strict religious discipline marry them.      Paul  

Janet, you agree?

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html