CHAPTER VI.

OF SLAVERY, AND ITS ABOLITION IN ENGLAND.

Judicial Action-Granville Sharp-Early Introduction of Slavery into England; its supposed legality (1700)-Opinion of York and Talbot, in favor of its legality (1729)-Effects of this Opinion-Slave Traffic in England-Case of Jonathan Strong-Efforts of Sharp-His Investigation of British Law-Declares Slavery to be illegal-Publishes his argument-Treats Slavery as illegal, though the Courts and Public Sentiment were against him-Case of Thomas Lewis-Decision of Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, sustaining the legality of Slavery-Sharp enters his Protest-Blackstone alters his Commentaries to defeat Sharp, and favor the Slaveholders-Case of James Somerset-The Argument-A Decision found against Slavery in the times of Queen Elizabeth-Lord Mansfield hesitates-An interval before the decision-Sharp anticipates the result, and memorializes Lord North against Slavery in the Colonies-State of Public Sentiment against Slavery— Final decision of Lord Mansfield (1772), releasing Somerset, and declaring Slavery illegal in England-Second Memorial of Sharp to Lord North, admonishing him of the duty of suppressing Slavery in the Colonies, agreeably to the decision of Lord Mansfield.

As church action against slavery naturally follows and grows out of religious teachings and testimonies against the sin of slavery, so judicial and legislative action against the practice, naturally follows and grows out of both the preceding. The laws of a country are an index, to a great extent, of the prevalent religion of a country, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain, for any length of time, a code of laws that essentially conflict with the religion of the people.

From the records of early religious testimony and action against slavery, we come to those of judicial action.

The first laborer in this department of benevolent enterprise, in England, says Clarkson, was Granville Sharp, "distinguished from those who preceded him in this particular, that whereas they were only writers, he was both a writer and an

actor in the cause." His first effort in 1767, for the release of an individual slave, was followed, not long afterwards, by systematic endeavors to overthrow slavery itself in the British dominions, and particularly in England.

The introduction of slavery into England, appears to have been upon the same foundation, (in respect to its legality,) as its introduction into the North American colonies. That is, it was done without the authority of any direct statute; and it was done in the presence and in palpable violation of English Common Law. If it could plead any legal warranty, it was that of the royal permission to transport Africans "with their own free consent," into the colonies, and the Act of Parliament "for extending and improving the trade to Africa," which prohibited "any violence to the natives."

How early slaves were introduced into England, we cannot exactly determine. "Before the year 1700," says Clarkson, "planters, merchants, and others, resident in the West Indies, but coming to England, were accustomed to bring with them certain slaves, to act as servants with them during their stay." They frequently absconded, and were sometimes seized and sent back by force. A sentiment had come down from former ages that Christians could not enslave Christians, and that as soon as an Englishman's slave was baptized, he became free. In consequence of this sentiment, it became common for pious clergymen to baptize all the slaves they could, providing "god-fathers" for them, according to the usages of the Church of England. These god-fathers were in the habit of vindicating their high claim to the title, by espousing the cause of their god-children, and demanding their freedom. For a time, this held the slave-masters in check, as they were "afraid to carry off their slaves by force, and equally afraid to bring any of the cases before a public court."

"In this dilemma, they applied, in 1729, to York and Talbot, the Attorney and Solicitor-General, for the time being, and obtained from them, the following strange opinion: We are of opinion that a slave, by coming from the West Indies into Great Britain or Ireland, either with or without his master, does not become free, and that his master's right and property in

him is not thereby determined or varied, and that baptism doth not bestow freedom upon him, or make any alteration in his temporal condition, in these kingdoms. We are also of opinion that the master may legally compel him to return again, to the plantations."

"This cruel and illegal opinion was delivered in 1729. The planters, merchants, and others, gave it, of course, all the publicity in their power; and the consequences were as might easily have been apprehended. In a little time, slaves absconding, were advertised in the London papers, as runaways, and rewards offered for the apprehension of them; in the same brutal manner as we find them advertised in the land of slavery. They were advertised, also, in the same papers, to be sold at auction, sometimes by themselves, and at others, with horses, chaises, and harness. They were seized also by their masters, or by persons employed by them, in the very streets, and dragged from thence to the ships; and so unprotected, now, were these poor slaves, that persons, no wise concerned with them, began to institute a trade in their persons, making agreements with captains of ships, going to the West Indies, to put them on board at a certain price." This "shows, as all history does, that where there is a market for the persons of human beings, all kind of enormities will be practiced to obtain them.”Clarkson's History, &c., PP. 38-9.

For forty-three years did this "illegal opinion" of York and Talbot prevail in Great Britain instead of law; nay, in opposition to the fundamental law of the realm. Such was the state of things when, in 1767, as before mentioned, Granville Sharp undertook the liberation of Jonathan Strong, claimed as a slave by David Lisle, a lawyer and slave-master of Barbadoes, then residing in London.

"But the lawyers whom Sharp consulted, declared the laws were against him. Sir James Eyre, Recorder of the city, whom he retained as his counsel, adduced to him York and Talbot's opinion, and informed him that Lord Chief Justice Mansfield agreed with those gentlemen."-Stuart's Memoir of Sharp, p. 8.

"Mischief framed by law, yet against law, thus took deep root in Britain." "At this time slavery had disgraced the British Colonies in America and in the West Indies, for two hundred years. The righteous law of the empire had been evaded or perverted, and opinion and precedent had been substituted for law."-Ibid, pp. 6-7.

This, Granville Sharp understood, though he stood alone. He had not been educated a lawyer. But he understood, better than York and Talbot, (as the event proved,) and bet

ter than Mansfield and Blackstone, the sacred and the changeless nature of LAW. A legal triumph was in reserve for him, the most sublime and august of any on the records of modern jurisprudence.

But it was not won in the controversy concerning Jonathan Strong. Some informality in the proceedings led to his discharge by the Mayor. He was, however, instantly seized again by Captain Laird, (about to sail for the West Indies,) on behalf of John Kerr, to whom Lisle had sold him. This seizure was made in the presence of the mayor and others, before whom also, Granville Sharp, with consummate generalship and promptitude, stepped up to Captain Laird, and, tapping him on the shoulder, exclaimed: "I charge you, in the name of the king, with an assault upon the person of Jonathan Strong, and all these are my witnesses!" Laird was intimi dated, let go his grasp, and Sharp conveyed away the ransomed captive in triumph. This led to a suit against Sharp, the trial of which was deferred by the plaintiffs for two years, and then withdrawn by them under charge of treble costs for the delay.

During these two years, Mr. Sharp applied himself, diligently, to a further study of the law, by which his former position was fortified, and he was prepared for any future litigation on the subject. In the course of this investigation, he applied to the great Doctor (afterwards Judge) Blackstone, for his opinion. "He was not, however, satisfied with it," says Clarkson, "when he received it, nor could he obtain any satisfactory answer from several other lawyers, to whom he afterwards applied." Thrown, therefore, upon his own industry and resources, he worked out the problem alone.

"The result of his research, was a tract, 'On the injustice and dangerous tendency of tolerating slavery, or even of admitting the least claim to private property, in the persons of men, in England."—Stuart's Memoir, p. 8.

66

In this work"* (says Clarkson) "he refuted, in the clearest manner, the opinion of York and Talbot. He produced against it the opinion of

* Mr. Clarkson gives, as the title of the book, "A Representation of the Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery in England."

Lord Chief Justice Holt, who, many years before, had determined that every slave coming into England became free. He attacked and refuted it, again, by a learned and laborious inquiry into all the principles of villeinage. He refuted it, again, by showing it to be an axiom in the British Constitution, That every man in England, was free to sue for, and defend his rights, and that force cannot be used without a legal process,' leaving it with the judges to determine whether an African was a man. He attacked also, the principle of Judge Blackstone, and showed where his error lay. This valuable book, containing these and all other kinds of arguments, on the subject, he distributed, but particularly among the lawyers, giving them an opportunity of refuting or acknowledging the doctrines it contained."— Clarkson's History, p. 42.

Several cases were afterwards tried, in which the slaves were set at liberty; but "none of the cases had yet been pleaded upon the broad ground, 'Whether an African slave coming into England, became free.' This great question had been studiously avoided. It was still, therefore, left in doubt." Mr. Sharp continually acted on the ground that there was no legal slavery in England, though the judges had not so decided. The suspense at length became painful to both parties, and there was a general anxiety to have the controversy decided.-Clarkson, p. 42, Stuart, p. 10.

In the meantime, some of the cases were so decided as to afford great encouragement to the slave party. An African. named Thomas Lewis, had escaped from his master, Mr. Stapylton, in London. He was recaptured, and put on board a vessel for the West Indies. The vessel had reached the Downs, and was already under way, when a habeas corpus was carried on board, and the man released, and sent on shore. A bill was found against Stapylton and his two assistants, and the case was tried before the Court of King's Bench, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield presiding, the 20th of February, 1771. The jury returned a verdict of guilty: "but so fraught was Mansfield's mind, still, with the false views of the day, that he refused to proceed to judgment, and the criminals escaped.” -"Against this proceeding of the Judge, as an open contempt of the laws of England, Granville Sharp prepared a strong protest."—Stuart's Memoir, p. 10.