SINCE the Publication of my Book on ‘the Injustice and dangerous Ten­dency of Tolerating Slavery in England,’ several unforeseen circumstances ha [...]e obli­ged me to consider that subject more strictly, in order to obviate the insinuations of some interested Persons, who still en­deavour to inculcate and maintain, even in this Island, the ungenerous West Indian Notions concerning property in Slaves.

Upon these dangerous princip [...] several violent Outrages have lately been commit­ted [Page 4]for the recovery of such pretended property; and several Negroes have been knocked down and kidnapped by Ruffians, hired for that purpose, and have been hur­ried on Ship Board in order to be transpor­ted to the West Indies, in open Contempt of the English Laws, and of the Habeas Corpus Act in particular, which denounces heavy Penalties against those who attempt to transport any Person whatever from this Kingdom against their Will: for I have shewn in my former Treatise in Pages 20 to 28 that Negroes, and all other Aliens are the King's Subjects, when resiant in this Kingdom; and that they are entitled to the Protection of the English Laws in ge­neral, and of the Habeas Corpus Act in particular. The same Arguments are fur­ther inforced in Pages 152 to 159.

In Pages 136 to 146 of the same Book will be found a full Answer to such Argu­ments as had then been offered, concerning any right which the Master may have ac­quired to the perpetual service of a Man; [Page 5]and in Pages 163 and 164 it is (I hope) demonstrated that the Service of a Slave cannot justly be compared to the Service of an Apprentice; and that a Contract cannot be implied in such a Case, as some learned Men have insinuated.

In the fourth and last Part of the said Tract the Doctrines of Villenage are shewn to be obsolete, so that the least Claim of perpetual Service, cannot be justified thereby.

These References to my former Work are inserted here, partly to avoid a recapi­tulation of these necessary points, and partly, that those, who have any concern at present in such matters, may thereby be enabled to consider and examine these several Heads without the trouble of reading the whole Book; which is not so compendious as the Author could wish, it having been wrote at several different Periods, as occasion offer­ed, and new Arguments were opposed, during the time that an Action (which was shamefully prolonged) depended against the Author and one of his Brothers, for having [Page 6]accidentally (not officiously) assisted a poor Negro Servant who was kidnapped and con­fined in the Poultry Compter without a Warrant, and there sold to a West-India Planter to be transported to Jamaica.

It has already been proved, in the places before referred to, that no right whatever can be acquired to the perpetual Service of a Man without a Contract, and that such a Contract cannot be implied, unless the free Consent of both Parties is implied likewise, and clearly proved. Nevertheless as some sordid and tenacious Contenders for this kind of imaginary Property are still so in­considerate as to risque all the Penalties of a Premunire, besides heavy Fines, by ven­turing to seize and carry away by force their quondam Slaves, I am willing for the pre­sent to admit their Plea of Private Property merely that I may examine the Weight of it, and balance it with the Negroes Pro­perty in his own Person, which, in a Land of Justice, doth equally demand some share of our Consideration.

[Page 7]The Authors and Abettors of the scan­dalous and Inhuman Outrages of which I complain, cannot possibly ground their De­fence on any other Point whatsoever, than this single Plea of private Property, and the necessary obligation of the Courts of Justice to secure to every Man his own. Now if a Negro Man, or any other human Being whatever, is considered as property in this Country, he falls under the Head of Chat­tels and must necessarily (so far I mean as the Master's right ought to be considered) be ranked under that denomination.

Now A CHATTEL is "res estimabilis;" a thing to be valued; a thing merely of a pecuniary consideration; and the Slaveholder, accordingly, rates his supposed Property in a Man at a base price, not more, upon an average, than the value of a good Horse, viz. 30 l. 40 l. or 50 l. to the disgrace of hu­man nature: whereas, on the other hand, the Negro (though considered as a Chattel with respect to the Master's claim, yet be­ing himself, also, a Man) has certainly a [Page 8]superior right and title to his own Person; a claim of natural Property in himself, which is inestimable; far above all pecuniary consi­deration; for, with respect to his side of the question, THE HUMAN BODY IS ABOVE ALL PRICE, ‘Corpus humanum non recipit aesti­mationem.’ ^* Surely his Liberty to him is inestimable!—at least, the English Law presumes that it is so. ‘LIBERTAS EST RES INEST­IMABILIS..’ Jenk. Cent. 52. Now let the idea of the CHATTEL, even at the highest price it will bear, be weighed and compared with the subject of the last men­tioned maxim, and let Justice hold the scale!—Shall we doubt whether the Estimable claim or the Inestimable claim is to be pre­ferred?

‘The Law regards the Person above his Possessions;’— ‘ Life and Liberty most;’— ‘ Freehold and Inheritance above Chattels, &c.’ ^‡—so that Chattels, we find, are but of a very inferior consideration, being ranked only in the third degree.

[Page 9] ‘ Law favoureth, Life, Liberty, and Dower,’ and cannot, therefore, give the preference to the Master's mere mercenary claim of property, without a manifest con­tradiction to itself,— ‘ And the Law abhors Falshood, Variance, Contrariety, &c.’— ‘ Lex Angliae non patitur ABSURDUM. 9. Cook. 22.’— ‘ Lex rejicit PUGNANTIA, incongrua. Jenk. Cent. 140, 133, 176.’

It is true, indeed, that the Law, in this case, may seem to suffer (or permit) a wrong by the Master's losing his supposed right and property; but if we consider, that the admitting such a Property would be a want of Mercy in the Law, nay, even an act of Cruelty (which the Law abhors) to­wards those persons who have a superior, because a natural interest in the determina­tion of this question, it must appear to de­monstration, that the Law doth no wrong, when it rejects the lesser claim of estimable property, in favour of that natural interest which is inestimable: And therefore, how­soever the imaginary proprietor may think [Page 10]himself aggrieved, yet the law is vindi­cated herein, when we consider that every claim of Property is absolutely unjust in itself, and must necessarily be set aside through the mercy of the Law, if it interferes, or is in­consistent with that natural and equitable claim to personal security, which the law of this kingdom hath always favoured; for "the Law of England is a Law of Mercy." ‘LEX ANGLIAE EST LEX MISERICORDIAE, 2 Inst. 315.’ so that each Slaveholder must still be obliged to allow, ‘ that the Law (even in this unavoidable decision against himself) doth injury to no man:’— ‘ Lex nemini operatur iniquum.’— ‘ nemini facit injuriam.’

Let the Slaveholder remember, also, that his being thus deprived of his imaginary Property, cannot be considered otherwise (let him make the most of it) than merely, as a private loss; whereas, if such an unna­tural right be admitted without due consi­deration of the superior Personal Right of the Negro, a worse Vassalage, than the An­cient [Page 11]Villenage, ^* would in time be introduced into this free Christian Country, by which the Publick would be materially injured, as well in Honour, as in Morals, and National Safety: therefore, ‘the Law will rather endure a particular mischief (as the loss of private property) than a general incon­venience.’ ‘ Lex citius tollerare vult PRI­VATUM DAMNUM quam PUBLICUM MALUM. Co. Lit. 152.’

Thus stands the Common Law, with re­spect to the point in question; and it is not (I apprehend) in the least altered by Sta­tute Law; so that unless the Advocates for Slavery can prove that it is altered, we may safely conclude with the following maxim, that ‘ whatever was at Common Law, ana is not taken away by Statute, remaineth still, Co. Lit. 115.’

[Page 12]I flatter myself, that no Gentleman of the Law will attempt to contradict or set aside the established Maxims which are here quoted, because such a behaviour would necessarily draw upon them that just censure and contempt, which the learned Author ^* of the Doctor and Student expres­ses in his VIIIth ^† Chapter against all Lawyers, without exception, to dignity, that presume to contradict approved maxims.— ‘The Fourth Ground of the Law of Eng­land (says he) standeth in divers princi­ples that be called in the Law, Maxims, the which have been always taken for Law (SEMPER HABITA ET TENTA SUNT PRO LEGE) in this Realm, so that it is not lawful for any that is learned to deny them; for every one of those Max­ims is sufficient authority to himself.’— Thus far the Translator, but we may ga­ther from the words of the excellent Au­thor [Page 13]himself ^*, that Men, who deny these Maxims are no longer worthy to be talked with;—for he adds, ‘ in tanto quod cum ne­gantibus ea (viz. Maxima) non est ulterius arguendum ^†.’

A more modern, but not less respectable Author, has furnished us with a Maxim nearly to the same effect, viz. ‘Those that forego (or set aside) the Law of the Land, deservedly incur from thence a perpetual stain of Infamy.’— ‘ Legem terrae amittentes perpetuam infamiae notam inde merito incurrunt. Sir Ed. Cook. IIId. Inst. 221.’

Thus the Plea of private property in the Persons of Men must necessarily fall to the [Page 14]Ground, when it is measured by the Maxims of the Common Law.

I have not, designedly, done any injustice to this Plea; and, tho' I may, perhaps, have treated my subject injudiciously, and not according to Method, yet I defy the most interested advocate for Slavery to give more real weight or value to such kind of pro­perty than what I have already stated, if, at the same time, the Learned Judge Black­stone's arguments concerning the three Origins of Slavery be duly considered.

I have quoted these Arguments at length in my former Tract (from page 141 to 145) but shall, nevertheless, repeat them here and pledge them as unanswerable by the most able Casuist, or even by the Learned Author himself were he to undertake it. But this I speak only comparatively, refer­ring to his great abilities, not his will: for though I have been obliged to guard against some doubtful expressions in other part of his Works (See my former Tract pages 136 to 141) yet I have too good an opinion of [Page 15]that worthy Gentleman to conceive that he will ever entertain any real inclination for so ungenerous a task.

‘The three origins of the right of Sla­very, (says he) assigned by Justinian, 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 untrue position, when taken generally, that, by the law of nature or nations, a man may kill 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 absolute necessity did not subsist, since the victor did not actually kill him, but made him prisoner. War is itself justifiable only on principles [Page 16]of self-preservation; 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 the sense of the laws of old Rome, or modern Barbary, is also 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 be given for life and liberty, both of which (in absolute Slavery) are held to [Page 17]be in the master's disposal?—His pro­perty also, the very price he seems 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 principles upon which all 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 naj­cunter;" the children of acquired Slaves are, jure naturae, by a negative kind of birth-right, 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 to Slavery, much less can they reduce the offspring. Upon these principles THE LAW OF ENG­LAND abhors, and will not endure the exist­ence of Slavery, within this nation:’ so that [Page 18]when an attempt was made to introduce it▪ ‘by statute 1 Edward VI. c. 3. which ordained, that all idle vagabonds should be made Slaves, and fed upon bread, water, or small drink, and refuse meat; should wear a ring of iron round their necks, arms, or legs; and should be compelled by beating, chaining, or otherwise, to perform the work assigned them, were it never so vile; the spirit of the nation could not brook this condition▪ even in the most abandoned rogues; and therefore this statute was repealed in two years afterwards.’ Coms. 1. Vol. p. 4 [...]3.

Thus it is clear that there can be no claim of right to the perpetual Service of a man which is not ORIGINALLY FOUNDED EITHER IN RAPINE THEFT OR NOTORI­OUS INJUSTICE. ‘For it must be obvious to every person, who is not blinded by the desire of gain,’ says the author of a Short Account of the Slave Trade, &c. which I caused to be reprinted in 1768, p. 64) ‘that the Right, by which these [Page 19]men hold the Negroes in Bondage, is no other than what is derived from those who stole them, who, having no other Title, but that which Robbers have over their Prey could not convey any better to the purchaser; and that therefore to continue to hold them in Bondage, for wordly Advantage, by no other right than that which those guilty men give them, is consenting to, and partaking of their Guilt.’

Therefore when a Notorious Outrage and Breach of the Peace is committed under the pretence of any such groundless claim of service, the Magistrate who neglects to re­lieve the person oppress'd, and to punish the Offenders, is certainly a partaker of their Guilt; and no upright and conscientious Judge (who does not set up his own will above the laws of the Land) can possibly entertain any doubt in his mind about the punishment of such Offenders: for when the Laws of the Land, and especially the Habeas Corpus Act, are expressly and [Page 20]clearly on one Side of the Question (without the least exception whatever concerning any difference or distinction of Persons,) and when the only plea on the other side of the Question is absolutely without Foundation either in Natural Equity or the established Law and Customs of this Country, what room can there be for doubt? and how would a Judge be able to justify an Arrest of Judgment in such a case?

Every Judge is (or ought to be) sworn, that he will minister Justice indifferently (or without respect of Persons) to all Men.— ‘Se justitiam ministraturum indifferenter omnibus hominibus.’ (Fortescue de Laudibus Leg. Angliae, Chap. 51.) And therefore if the Laws and Established Cus­toms of the land with respect to the pre­sent Question make no distinction of Persons (whether Bond or Free, White or Black) neither can a Judge, without risquing the guilt of Perjury.

I have proved in Page 159 of my for­mer Tract, ‘that the Laws of England [Page 21](in the late Reign) were esteemed obnox­ious to any involuntary Bondage without a just cause, and to all private jurisdictions whatsoever; so that an extension of THE INFLUENCE, ^* BENEFIT AND PROTEC­TION’ of these laws was considered as a relief to our Fellow Subjects in Scotland from all private oppression. I mean the late pernicious Vassalage of Scotland; the extinction of which has happily produced the present flourishing State of Arts, Trade, and Manufactories amongst our Brethren in that part of the Island.

But as the claim of private property in the persons of men is the very root and foundation of the worst kind of Vassalage, I must observe, that, if any Judge should hereafter venture to suspend the execution of the English Laws in consideration of any such kind of pre­tensions whatever, he might be said to stab the constitutional freedom of two Great and [Page 22]ancient Kingdoms at one blow. For how should our fellow subjects at the other end of the Island be able to trust in the parlia­mentary Promise of the ‘ Influence, Benefit and Protection of the King's Laws’ to be extended as far as Scotland, if the said Laws were really liable to be rendered ineffectual, even in England, by a mere groundless doubt of one single Judge.

A Doubt is certainly a very insuffi­cient excuse for an arrest of Judgment, in any case whatever, unless "strong and probable Grounds" are alledged to justify it; but a groundless doubt upon the present question would be more parti­cularly criminal; because it would, pro­bably, tend to the introduction of the diabolical ^* Tyranny and Injustice of our West Indian Colonies, whereby human Nature is vilifyed and degraded to the Rank and level of brute Beasts; for not only the grossest op­pression of our fellow man but even murder ^† [Page 23]is there tolerated, and Marriage exclu­ded, ^* as I have shewn in the notes to my former work. ^†

Whatever tends to the same point (viz. the degradation of human nature and the in­troduction of that consummate wickedness which must of course prevail wherever Slavery is tolerated) does certainly promote the Work and Service of the Grand Enemy of Mankind, and consequently ought to be estemed highly offensive to Almighty God.

Some Persons may, perhaps, alledge in vindication of the supposed doubt above men­tioned, that the Legislature has, at diffe­rent times, given encouragement to the African Slave Trade, (however detestable, and pernicious to mankind it may be esteemed) and that the same ought to be accounted [Page 24]an acknowledgment, that Property in Slaves is, in some degree, lawful.

Such Arguments, and Insinuations I have frequently heard, but let the Advocates for Sla­very make the most of them they can, yet shall they not be able to avail themselves of any such strained, consequential Doctrines: for suppose that the Legislature should, un­warily, happen to do wrong in any parti­cular point whatsoever, and that any one of their Subjects in a judicial character should, instead of giving them warning of the evil, be ready to go before them in it, and should even shew himself prone to carry the mis­chief to a much higher pitch, than the Le­gislature ever conceived or intended, by en­deavouring to render ineffectually one of their most solemn acts, relating, in some re­spect, to the same point, which we will suppose to have remained unrepealed and in full force, and which might therefore have been used as a just and honest expedient to save the honour of the Legislature and cor­rect the inadvertent evil. Such a neglect [Page 25]and contempt of a positive and established statute, added to a disregard of natural as well as national Justice, ought to be esteemed as a sufficient reason for condemning such a man as a most undutiful subject, and dangerous Politician.

But, to carry the Argument still further, let us suppose (what I trust will never come to pass) that even the Legislature itself should become so miserably degenerate as to repeal, or annul, the Habeas Corpus Act, and adopt, instead of it, the most horrid and diaboli­cal of the West Indian Laws; yet, even in this case, the natural unlawfulness and wickedness of such principles as those laws contain, would still remain; for ‘No Legis­lature on Earth, which is the supreme power in every Civil Society, can alter the Nature of things, or make that to be lawful, which is contrary to the Law of God, the supreme Legislator and Go­vernor of the World. Mischief may be framed, and established by a Law, but [Page 26]if it be, it is mischief still, as much so as it was before it was established, tho' its being so may make Men insensible of their Guilt, or bold and fearless in the Perpetration of it; for too many, among Christians, are, contrary to Christ's Ex­hortation, more influenced by the Fear of Man, than by the Fear of God.—It is really a serious Subject, and I own it raises a serious concern in my Mind, that such Barbarity should be suffered in Christian Nations. It is enough to make a Man's Heart ach, unless he has not lost all Love and Regard to his Kind, to think that so many Thousands of the Hu­man Race should be sacrificed every year to that greedy voracious God Mammon ^*.’

The Number of Negro Slaves bought in one Year only (viz. 1768) on the Coast of Africa, from Cape Blanco to Rio Longo, amounted to 104, 100 Persons, according to a particular state of that Trade inserted in the Gazetteer of the 8th of July, 1769. [Page 27]These miserable creatures, it is said, ‘ were bought by Barter for European and Indian Goods, chiefly at 15 l. Sterling each.’

Now it is dreadful to consider what multitudes of men must have been killed merely in the attempt to take so many wret­ched Captives for sale; and again what multitudes, out of so large a number, would die, as usual, in their passage to the West Indies and America either of Grief and despair, or by being inhumanly stifled in the Holds of Ships; besides the large proportion (nearly one half) that would die of the seasoning, (as it is called) after their arrival in the plantations; and lastly that all the remainder of this vast multitude of 104, 100 miserable human beings will probably be worn out by hard service and oppression in the space of about 16 years, or less, ac­cording to the average rate of some calcula­tions that have been published. These consi­derations, I say, must needs inspire us with indignation and horror even though the evil, at present, is at a considerable distance from [Page 28]us. But if the advocates, for the unnatural and unlawful claims, against which I contend, should receive such encouragement as to confirm their pretensions; the same must inevitably introduce by degrees a Tolera­tion of the West India Slavery, with all its direful consequences, into this Kingdom: which, added to the manifold corruptions and deprav [...]ties into which this Kingdom has already unhappily fallen, will certainly cause our measure of Iniquity to over­flow, and, in all probability, draw down upon us some dreadful and speedy national calamity ^*, besides that severe judgment, which is already but too apparent amongst us, I mean that deplorable Hardness of Heart, and abandoned Spirit of Injustice, which has rendered the publication of this remonstrance necessary.