4 produces the requisite conviction,--and is, indeed, most effectually counteracted, by the constant recurrence of expressions, which involve an admission of the contrary. We have never seen it plainly denied, that a planter has any right, either in reason, or in law, to the beings, whom he calls his slaves; or, that, in other words, he can legally claim a property of any kind, either in their persons, or in their services. This, however, we undertake to deny, and shall undertake to disprove. Nay more-we will undertake to show, that the promulgation of such a doctrine need not be attended with the slightest danger to any of the parties, whose interest it seems so immediately to jeopardize. There is no imaginable absurdity, connected with this subject, which has not, first or last, been resorted to, by those who advocate the slavery of negroes. Even the ironical and ludicrous arguments, by which Baron Montesquieu said he would vindicate the system,--such as, that these creatures (B. xv. c. 5.) are all over black, and with such a flat nose, that they can scarcely be pitied,' and that it is hardly to be believed that God, who is a wise Being, should place a soul, especially a good soul, in such a black ugly body'--have, with little mutation, been seriously and earnestly alleged, in favour of the practice, by some of his late We cannot be expected to go through with a refucountrymen. tation of such abominable nonsense as this. There are certain other plausible considerations, however, which have been constantly repeated, from the time of Justinian; and which, though, in our opinion, completely refuted by the President Montesquieu, are still brought forward by the anti-abolitionists, and passed by, in silence, by their opposers. This latter circumstance has surprised us the more, because the reasoning of the President, by be. ing translated into Judge Blackstone's Commentaries, (B. I. c. 14.), was furnished to the hand of every Englishman, who pretends to have the least knowledge of his boasted Constitution. And this circumstance, too, must be our apology for introducing, here, a passage from the most elementary and the most common of all works upon law. We prefer the Judge's translation, both because it is more concise than the original, and because, by being adopted in his vigenti annorum lucubrationes, it has become a portion of the English law. The three origins of slavery, assigned by Justinian, (says he), are all of them built upon false foundations. As, first, slavery is held to arise jure gentium, from a state of captivity in war; whence slaves are called mancipia, quasi manu capti. The conqueror, say the civilians, had a right to the life of his captive; and, having spared that, has a right to deal with him as he pleases. But it is an untrue position, when taken generally, that by the law of nature or nations, a man may 'his enemy: he has only a right to kill him, in particular cases; in 'cases of absolute necessity, for self-defence; and it is plain this kill * All nations (a few Cannibals excepted, a striking fact adduced by Montesuieu' concur in detesting the murdering of prisoners in cold blood.' B. xv. c. 2. 'absolute necessity did not subsist, since the victor did not actually 'kill him. War is justifiable only on principles of self-preserva'tion; and therefore it gives no other right over prisoners but 'merely to disable them from doing harm to us, by confining their 'persons; much less can it give a right to kill, torture, abuse, plunder, or even to enslave, an enemy, when the war is over. 'Since therefore the right of making slaves by captivity depends 'on a supposed right of slaughter, that foundation failing, the consequence drawn from it must fail likewise. But, secondly, it 'is said that slavery may begin jure civili; when one man sells 'himself to another. This, if only meant of contracts to serve or 'work for another, is very just: but when applied to strict slavery, '(in a sense of the laws of old Rome or modern Barbary, or 'at 'present in our colonies,' adds Montesquieu, ut sup.) is impossible. 'Every sale implies a price, a quid pro quo, an equivalent given 'to the seller in lieu of what he transfers to the buyer: but what 'equivalent can he give for life, and liberty, both of which (in ab'solute slavery) are held to be in the master's disposal? His pro'perty also, the very price he scorns to receive, devolves ipso facto 'to his master, the instant he becomes his slave. In this case 'therefore the buyer gives nothing, and the seller receives nothing: 'of what validity then can a sale be, which destroys the very prin'ple upon which sales are founded? Lastly, we are told, that besides these two ways by which slaves fiunt, or are acquired, they 'may also be hereditary: servi nascuntur; the children of acquired 'slaves are jure naturæ, by a negative kind of birthright, slaves 'also. But this, being built on the two former rights, must fall 'together with them. If neither captivity, nor the sale of one's 'self, can by the law of nature and reason reduce the parent of 'slavery, much less can they reduce the offspring.' We can add nothing to this unanswerable argument, except, that these three origins of slavery are the very ones, which the antiabolitionists have continued to alledge, ever since the discussion commenced, and which, we venture to say, a planter would now adduce, if he were told there could be no possible foundation of his right to the beings, whom he denominates slaves. He might, indeed, be induced to tell us, that, though he has no right to their persons; yet he has to their services; but could it escape him, that a right to services can only be founded upon a contract-upon an exchange of equivalents? And that,-laying aside the deprivation of liberty, which is itself above all price,-it would be ridiculous to pretend, that a negro ever became a slave, by the voluntary barter of his own services? In fine, we do not see, that, according to the principles of natural law, there is a possibility of one human being's making out his right to the person or services of another. And there are other considerations, more particularly connected with the English law, which led us to precisely the same conclusion. England has completely turned the tables upon Africa. There was a time, when the English, of both sexes, were not only exposed to sale in all the markets of Europe, but transported and sold in Africa.* Between the fifth and eleventh centuries, indeed, it would have been no abuse of language to call a great part of Englishmen beasts of burthen. Our word team, though derived from the original Saxon, which signified children, came nevertheless by its present meaning, from being applied to slaves: t-slaves were, at the time we speak of, ranked with cattle of all kinds, under the general denomination of living money; and, when Dr. Henry tells us, that, for some time after the set'tlement of the Saxons in England, their slaves were in the same 'circumstances with their horses, oxen, cows, and sheep, except 'that it was not fashionable to kill and eat them,' did he mean to insinuate, that, with regard to the latter peculiarity, their slaves' were any better off than their horses?' Indeed, we suspect the only distinction, at that period, between a master's various kinds of stock, was, that his horses and horned cattle walked on four legs; whereas, we have no sufficient authority for believing, that the human cattle used any more than two. Nothing is clearer, at any rate, than that the laws made no sort of distinction. It is expressly stated, in the Leges Wallicæ, that a master hath 'the same right to his slaves as to his cattle.' 'Slaves were not 'supposed to have any family or relations, who sustained any loss 'by their death; and therefore, when one of them was killed by 'his master, no mulct was paid; because the master was supposed 'to be the only looser; when slain by another his price or manbote 'was paid to his master.'|| Let it be remembered, however, that, according to the spirit of these gothic laws, every individual in the community was as much a beast, as a slave, or a horse; the only distinction between different men consisting chiefly in the price put upon their respective heads. Life-liberty-every thing, in short, was considered as property, and estimated in pounds and shillings. By the laws of the Angles, for instance, you might kill the king for 1300l.; a prince, for half as much; a bishop, or an alderman, for 300; a sheriff, for 150/; a thane, or clergyman, for 751.; and a ceorl for about 10%. The 6th law of Ethelbert is, 'Let him that killeth 'a freeman pay fifty shillings to the King for his loss of a subject; the 20th, But if a man be killed, let the murderer compensate 'his death with twenty shillings;' the 21st, If a man kill another, 'be the ordinary mulct of an hundred shillings imposed upon 'him;' and the 31st, Let him that killeth a man make compen'sation, according to the true valuation, in current money.' Nor was life alone considered as so much property. Every limb of the body, even to the teeth and nails, had a definite price fixed upon it; and, what we remark more for its singularity, than for *Hen. Hist. Qto. Ed. Vol. II. p. 480. Id. ib. p. 484. 6 + Id. ib. p. 579. Id. ib. p. 229. เ its direct reference to the subject, there was a sort of tacit compact between all the European nations, that, if a man was maimed, in travelling abroad, the part injured should go for what it was valued at, in his own country. Accordingly, the nose of a Span'iard, for example, (we use the words of Dr. Henry) was perfectly 'safe in England, because it was valued at 13 marks; but the nose 'of an Englishman run a great risk in Spain, because it was 'valued only at 12s. An Englishman,' furthermore, ' might have 'broken a Welchman's head for a mere trifle, but few Welchmen 'could afford to return the complement.' Even a wife was considered as mere property; and every marriage contract was a matter of bargain and sale. By Ethelbert's 76th law, if a man 'bought a maid, she stood for bought, if there were no fraud in 'the bargain; but if there were, she was to be returned and the purchaser's money restored to him;' and the same King's 32d law was, that, if a freeman lie with a freeman's wife, let him 'make amends for his crime, by buying another wife for the in'jured party.' Indeed, it was a maxim of jurisprudence, through all the middle ages, 'that there was no crime which might not be 'expiated with money;' and, as long as every thing was thought to have been made for this world only, we know not that the maxim can be considered as any very great absurdity. But the progress of reason, and, more than all, the introduction of Christianity, purified, by degrees, the spirit of Gothic jurisprudence. The light struck first, of course, upon the summit of society; and it was a considerable period before it reached to the base. The King and Barons were first emancipated from the slavery of having a price upon their heads; and, by a succession of ameliorating enactments, even the lowest order of bondmen were ultimately liberated. The leading doctrine of Christianity-that the soul is immortal-did more than any thing else, in placing the life of man beyond any estimate of money, or merchandize. It drew a broad line of distinction between the soul and the body; and set man at an immeasurable height above the beasts that perish. By the progressive melioration of the English law, he has left behind him all the animals, with which he was once ranked; and, though it is now felony to kill or to traffic in human beings, our poor oxen and horses may still be slaughtered or sold, with the greatest impunity. From these considerations it is sufficiently manifest, we think, that, according to the present spirit of English law, man is utterly beyond all price, and that, consequently, no one human being can be the property of another. There is one part of the English Constitution, indeed, which, at first sight, seems, in a measure, to disprove our conclusion. It is not to be denied, we confess, that, to one who looks only at the penal code of Great Britain, her laws would seem to hold the life of man in no very extravagant estimation. But the fact is by no means conclusive against our reasoning; and a slight historical review of the subject will abundantly show, we apprehend, that the objection cannot have the least weight, in the minds of those, who breathe the spirit of the nineteenth century. At first, the whole system of the Britons was, without doubt, as sanguinary as that of all other savage nations. By some means or other, however, it became inordinately lenient about the fifth century; insomuch, that crimes of every sort were expiated by pecuniary compensation. Every thing, as we have seen above, was subjected to a valuation in current money;' and, among the rest, a sign of equality was established between the lives of men and a certain number of pounds and shillings. In the tenth century, it began to be discovered, that these laws were most dangerously ineffectual; and measures were accordingly taken to make them more severe and preventive. Reformation went on; and it was not long before the system was completely reversed; so, that, while formerly a man might slay his neighbour for 20s., he was now slain himself, for purloining a great deal less amount. The same principle, however, was still at the bottom of the scheme,—that of considering men in the degrading light of things that could have a price. The progress of religion and of reason, as we endeavoured to prove before, has completely subverted this barbarous doctrine;--so that, in fact, the penal code of England has utterly outgrown the reason of its foundation;--just as the depreciation of money has destroyed the reason for giving the right of sufferage to such as had freehold of 40s. yearly value;--a sum which was fixed upon, as all know, because no individual could be considered as independent,* with a less income, but which, according to the present value of money, can no more be the measure of a man's independence, than 1s. could, at its original institution. The penal code of Great Britain is a part of what we may call the Gothic constitutions; and ought to have passed away, with the other parts of that system. If the old methods of estimating testimony had been retained,-if, in other words, the ordeal and the corsned were still resorted to, and if the credibility of a person, under oath, continued to be rated according to his price or manbote, there would be some shadow of excuse, for preserving the ancient measure of punishment. But those other parts have been gone, time whereof the memory of man hardly runneth to the contrary; and we consider it as a standing reproach to the boasted excellence of the British Constitution, that this remnant did not go along with them. It is directly opposed to what all emphatically consider as the fundamental doctrine of the national religion; and, while England is taking every pains to translate the Bible in every language, and to place it in every hand, she obstinately adheres to a code of jurisprudence, which disavows the most invaluable of all its principles. This principle has pervaded the other parts of her constitution; and we hope, ere long, we may be able to say without the slightest qualification, that no branch * Blk. B. I. c. 2. pp. 170, 173. |