Page images
PDF
EPUB

Another incident, and a very remarkable one, illustrates the methods resorted to, by gentlemen of the highest standing in the legal profession, at that time, in England, to sustain the slave interest, at the expense of those great fundamental maxims of Common Law, of which they were themselves the recognized expounders, and which they could enunciate, distinctly enough, except when overawed by "the mighty wealth and influence of the West India faction," before whom, king and nobles, courts of justice, parliaments and doctors of the law, bowed down in abject submission.

"In the beginnings of his researches, Granville Sharp had found and noted the following passage in Blackstone's Commentaries, Book I., page 123, Edition 1st-' And this spirit of liberty is so deeply implanted in our Constitution, and rooted in our very soil, that a slave or a negro, the moment he lands in England, falls under the protection of the laws, and, with regard to all national rights, becomes eo instanti, a freeman.'

"This passage being quoted in one of the trials, was triumphantly repelled by the opposite counsel, who produced the volume from which the quotation was made, and instead of the words as noted by Granville Sharp, read as follows: A negro, the moment he lands in England, falls under the protection of the laws, and so far becomes a free man, though the master's right to his service may possibly remain.'

"Upon further investigation, it was found that, in the course of the trials, Dr. Blackstone himself had made this alteration in the subsequent editions." -Stuart's Memoir of Sharp, p. 19.

Such was the condition of things, when, at length, a case came before the courts that presented a fair opportunity to test the great question of legal slavery in England. This opportunity was improved, and the issue was joined.

James Somerset "had been brought to England in November, 1769, by his master, Charles Stewart, from Virginia, and in process of time had left him. Stewart had him suddenly seized, and carried on board the Ann and Mary, Captain Knowles, in order to be taken to Jamaica, and there sold for a slave."

"On February 7, 1772, the cause was tried in the King's Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, aided by Justices Ashton, Welles and Ashhurst. The question at issue was 'Is every man in England entitled to the liberty of his person, unless forfeited by the laws of England?' This was affirmed by the advocates of Somerset; and Mr. Sergeant Davy, who

opened his cause, broadly declared,' that no man at this day is, or can be, a slave in England.'"—Stuart's Memoir, p. 11.

In the course of the argument a precedent was adduced in favor of freedom. "This was the case of Cartwright, who brought a slave from Russia, and would scourge him. For this he was questioned, and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for slaves to breathe in."-See Rushworth's Collections, p. 468. This was in the 11th of Queen Elizabeth.-Ib. Lord Mansfield was evidently beginning to waver.

"In order that time might be given for ascertaining the law fully on this head, the case was argued at three different sittings. First in January, secondly in February, and thirdly in May, 1772. And that no decision otherwise than what the law warranted, might be given, the opinion of the judges were taken on the pleadings."-Clarkson's Hist. p. 43.

"Granville Sharp availed himself, with his usual zeal, of this interval, and, among the other measures by which he sought to obtain an equitable decision, he addressed a Letter to Lord North, dated Feb. 18th, 1772."— Stuart's Memoir, p. 12.

In this Letter Mr. Sharp anticipates a decision of the courts against slavery, and says "We must judge by law, not by precedent."-He further intimates the illegality of slavery in the American Colonies, in the following paragraph:

"I might indeed allege that many of the plantation laws (like every other act that contains anything which is malum in se, evil in its own nature,) are already null and void in themselves; because they want every necessary foundation to render them valid, being absolutely contradictory to the laws of reason and equity, as well as the laws of God."—Ib. p. 13.

By this time the eyes of the British public, from the members of the administration down to the mass of the intelligent inhabitants, were fixed upon Lord Mansfield and the Court of King's Bench, awaiting, with deep interest and anxious suspense, their decision. It was a healthful scrutiny, not unfelt by the Lord Chief Justice and his associates. New and enlarged views of the nature and character of LAW had been impressed upon the nation and upon the national judiciary, by the tireless labors and profound investigations of Granville Sharp. And yet it required a desperate struggle to

break away from the meshes of precedent and opinion, and restore the ascendancy of impartial and equitable law.

"Lord Mansfield delayed judgment, and twice threw out the suggestion 'that the master might put an end to the present litigation, by manumitting the slave.' But the base suggestion was, providentially, not attended to. The judgment was demanded; and the judgment was given on Monday, 22d of June, 1772. After much lawyer-like circumlocution, Lord Mansfield decided as follows:

"Immemorial usage preserves the memory of positive law, long after all traces of the occasion, reason, authority, and time of its introduction are lost, and in a case so odious as the condition of slaves, must be taken strictly (tracing the subject to natural principles, the claim of slavery can never be supported.) The power claimed by, this return never was in use here. We cannot say the cause set forth in this return is allowed or approved of by the laws of this kingdom, and therefore the man must be discharged."-Stuart's Memoir, p. 17. "Mr. Sharp felt it his duty, immediately after this trial, to write" (again) "to Lord North, then principal minister of State, warning him, in the most earnest manner, to abolish, immediately, both the slave trade and the slavery of the human species, in all the BritISH DOMINIONS, as utterly irreconcilable with the principles of the BRITISH CONSTITUTION, and the established religion of the land."Clarkson's Hist., p. 44.

The measure here insisted on by Granville Sharp, was evidently required by the decision of the Somerset case, and had it been carried into effect, at that time, there would have been no slavery now in the United States.

Mr. Clarkson awards much credit to the counsel employed on this trial, Davy, Glynn, Hargrave, Mansfield, and Alleyne, but chiefly to Granville Sharp, "who became the first great actor in it, who devoted his time, his talents, and his substance to this Christian undertaking, and by whose laborious researches the very pleaders themselves were instructed and benefited."-p. 44.

"It ought to be remembered that, while Granville Sharp thus boldly remonstrated with the government of his country, he filled a government situation, and was dependent for his present subsistence, and his future prospects in life, upon the ministry of the day."-Stuart's Memoir, p. 15.

Thus was the guilty fiction of legal slavery in England exploded, after having been acted upon as though it were a

truth for at least three-fourths of a century, and confirmed by the highest official authority for forty-three years. Of the magnitude, the importance, and the legal consequences of this judicial decision, which forever settled the slave question in England, without legislative action or executive interference, we propose not to speak here. In another connection it may be adverted to again. Very possibly its study may assist in the detection and correction of similar mistakes in the judicial action of other countries, besides England. If York and Talbot, and Blackstone and Mansfield were mistaken, other learned judges may be. If, under the British monarchy, a private individual may peacefully revolutionize the jurispru dence of his country, it cannot be out of place, nor arrogant for the friends of liberty in republican America to study, to understand, to insist upon the principles of constitutional and common law, in their bearing upon the same great practical question, in their own country, as Granville Sharp did in his.

CHAPTER VII.

OF EFFORTS FOR ABOLISHING THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.

Relaxation of effort-American Revolution-Sharp espouses the cause of the Colonies-Thomas Clarkson's early life-Granville Sharp-Slave ship "Zong" (1781) -Trial of this case (1783)-Slave-traders sustained-Sharp's Report of the Trial -Committee instituted to act against the Slave Trade (1787)-Unfortunate Compromise-Policy of opposing the Slave Trade, but not Slavery-Solemn Protest of Granville Sharp-William Wilberforce-Public Agitation-Abstinence from Slave Products-Wilberforce denounced in the House of Lords-Influence of John Wesley-of the Quakers-the Baptists-Inquiry in King's Privy Council, 1788; also in House of Commons, introduced by Wm. Pitt-Dates of various movements in Parliament till 1806-Slave Trade abolished in Parliament in 1807Review of this struggle-Slavery declared illegal in 1772, yet the Slave Trade tolerated till 1807-The turning point-The legality of the Slave Trade-Pitt proved it illegal-Abolition of the Slave Trade abortive-Premature and misplaced gratulation and triumph. Mr. Clarkson's late retraction of his grand error (1845). Testimony to the impossibility of suppressing the traffic while Slavery continued (1845) Continued profitableness of the Slave Trade-Increased horrors of the Middle Passage-Slave Trade actually increased instead of being suppressed.

THE speedy and glorious success of the efforts of Granville Sharp and a few others for uprooting slavery from the soil of Great Britain, should have encouraged Christian philanthropists, in both hemispheres, one would think, to co-operate in similar efforts to uproot slavery throughout the colonial possessions of Great Britain, over which the same great principles of the British Constitution, and of English Common Law, were recognized as holding paramount authority. It is not improbable that the growing difficulties between the North American colonies and the mother country, ripening into a civil war, soon after the decision of the Somerset case, may have interrupted the correspondence just beginning to be opened

« PreviousContinue »