The Sun. — London, England, 1827-11-07 00:00:00

-11 4. n- 1 fore not at all bound to these several obligations which lie only upon slaves: • The person who sues for his freedom in the manner proposed, must sub mit himself to be apprenticed, or to be enlisted,•ot placed in some other situation, at the discretion of the officer of the Crown. Is that a manner in which a free person ought to assert his right ? What Ine'e he to do but to bring his action against the defamer of his rights ? and who can doubt but that he would recover most overwhelming damages against the person who had assaulted his freedom, and com pelled him to submit to a process that is only appli. cable to a slave ? It does appear to me, that upon this indictment alone the case totally fails, and ought, perhaps, in strictness, to be dismissed, with out any further proceedings. But there is a much larger question depending behind, and I shall, with out insisting particularly on the objection in thee, charges, follow tbe example of the Learned Judge it: the Court below, by; •ProCeedint' i to the considera tion of that question. 1. might With perfect pro.. priety.have dismissed the'ease-o-and require, per haps, some apology for not tieing so—in conformire with the general practice that entitles a Court to dismiss a cause in which the indictment or informa tion has wholly failed, and has not been followed by any degree of satisfactory proof. But I observe, first, that the Judge has proceeded to consider ii much more enlarged question, and which I presume he would hardly have done, if not compelled by some startling observations on the part of the Ad vocate-General. The same conduct has been pur sued by the geetlemen who have argued the'case iii this Court, who have very much confined themselves to the consideration of the more general question ; and; under` the protection of this practice, I venture to prohced to a similar liberty of expressing the sen timents tile( oceyr to me on the sanie subject. J. am - the more induced to do this, because, as I before observed, papers have been submit ted by his Majesty's Advocite-General to the Sti cretary.or State, which I presume contain the ob jectione which were urged by himself, and induced the ledge to apply his consideration to this general q uestion. I think that I may be considered as act ing not unfairly- when I advert to those topics as the objections which the Advocate-General had sub mitted to the . Court. The question depends upon the interprctttion of Snmmersett's case, in which ; 0 habeas corpus was granted, directed to Captain Knowles, to bring up the body of Summersett, negro, which was in his possession, in irons, with the cause of his detention. It appeared by the affi davits exhibited, that Summersett had been bought in Virginia, and brought to England by Mr. Steuart, his master : and on his refusing to return, was be sent by"bis master on board Knowles's ship to carried to Jamaica, and sold as a slave. It ap ' pears: that thin ease was some time before argued upon a question addressed to Lord Talbot and ti Mr. Yorke, whilst Attorney and Solicitor-General. They gave -it as their opinion that a slave coming from the West Indies, either with or without his master, to Great Britain, doth not become free, and that 'tics master's property or right in him is not thereby determined or varied; and they were also of opinion, that the master might legally compel him • eo return to the plantations, ands as Lord Mansfield expresses it, they both pledged themselves to the merchants in London to save them harrnlessfrOnn all inconvenience on such a subject ;. which pledge was afterwards very fully confirmed by a similar judg ment pronounced in 1749 by Sir Philip Yorke, then beCome Lord- Chancellor Hardwicke, sitting in the Court of Chancery; both of - these persons being great inen of that agh; and . (as Lord Mansfield ad :nits) great men in any , age. This judgment, an pronouriced, in full confidence, and without a doubt upon a practice which had endured universally in the colonies, and (as appeared by those opinions) in Great Britain, was, in no more than Q 2 years after wards, reversed by Lord Mansfield. The personal traffic in slaves resident in England had been as Public and as • authorized in London as in any of our West India islands. They were sold on the Exchange and other places of public re sort, by parties themselves resident in London, and with as' little reserve as they would have been in any of our West India. PoeSesSiona. Such suite of things continued, without impeachment, for much the greater part of last century. It appears that Lord Mansfield was extremely desirous of avoidihng the necessity of determin in g the question : e struggled hard to induce the parties to a compro- Mise ; said he had known five caseeso terminated out of six ; but the parties were firm to their pur pose in obtaining a judgment, and Lord Mansfield was at last compelled, after a delay of three terms, to.peenounce a - sentence, which followed by a silent .concurrence of the other Judges, discharged this negro; thereby establishing that the owners of slaves had no authority or controul over them in England, nor was there any power of sending them back to the colonies. Thus I see, after only two and twenty veare; in which a decision of great authority had teed delivered by lawyers of the greatest ability ,in this country, a system confirmed by a practice which had obtained, without exception, ev er since the in stitution of slavery in the colonies, and had likewise been supported-by the general practice of this nii.- tion, and by the public establishment of its Govern . merit, and it seems without any apparent opposition on the part of the public. The suddenness of this convulsion alinost puts one in mind of what is mo tioned by an eminent author, on a very different Q C-. casien, in the R oman History, " , Ad primunt populus Romanas repente fit taunt eladis Pomp iani alias." The people of Rome suddenly became quite another people. The real and sole question which the rase of Summersett brought before Lord Manse as expressed in the r eturn to the mandamus, field, , vas , whether a slave could be taken from this c.oun try in irons, and carried back to the West ? In Anddies, to h e restored to the dominion of his master all t h e a nswer, perhaps, which the question required was, that the party who was a slave could not be sent out of England in , tich a planner, and for sucb a.purpose—stating the reasons of that illegality. It is certainly true that Lord Mansfield, hi his fina l judgment, exemplifies the Subject largely; for, in one passage, he says, that "slavery is so odious, that it cannot be e stablished without positive law. Far from me be the presumption of questioning any obiter dictuni that fell from that great man upon that oc e.a-sion ; but I trust that I do not depart from the modesty that belongs to my situation, and I hope to my character, when I observe that ancient cus tom ;e generally recognised as a just foundation of • all l aw —that villanage of both kinds, Which is said by some tv lie the prototype of slavery, had no other origin than ancient custom ; itt)d that a great part of the common law itself, in all its relations, has Little other foundation than the same custom; and that the practiae o f slavery, as it exists in Antigua , and several' other of our colonies, though regulated by law, :has been in xnany instances founded upop a m uc h (wows in the discussion of similar authority• the advocates on that ques tion respecting villanage, • hot little appears is; the ot decision ssary of Lor for ma fo r Mansfiel re d e spon that point. It la p nece late the systems whic h had given way of villaoege regardant or gros, to which this species of slavery was compared, though dissimilar enough in very many respects, as is admitted by most writers 'on the subject, and amongst, other persons by the Adveeate General of Antigua, who, adverting to the ge neral system of villa.nege, ventures very truly to say, "to which eGlonial- slavery may be supposed to bear some analogy, in the absence of more conclusive authority." —These s ystems of villanage ha&been "long, though silently, extinguished, ,as long as the reign of Ed ward NI., at the time at which Sir T. Smith wrots and at which -he says, there was no villains in gros remaining in England. Villains regardant survived them sometime longer, but these were particulat villains, not attached to the persons, but to the manors or soll - S r `not late negro slaves, to b e shifted about for„ the -without being attaellea - to •'ctinireniene of the proprietor, —I cannot ,help antertaini ther the resemblancewhe n"), particulardbt manor.' between some villanagec ,and were the African slavery close -as to g ect, by their decay , the fall of s l avery - in England. f one—, certainly had not prevented the introduction of it into this country, and its continuance here for several years. .It does not, appear that the public was startled at the revival of villanage under the new form of African slavery. The villains in gros and regardant were both of a very different kind - from that of African slavery. Villains in gros were liable to any commands of their masters. Villains regardant were attached to particular manors, and to particular services dependent on those manors. They were men of the form, colour, and speech of their masters, born and bred in this country. The African slavery was very differently composed ; persons of different birth, complexion, and lan guage, and of all the various ranks of which their own country, Africa, was composed, and employed in various offices, according to the convenience of their owners, unlike the cottagers or handicraftsmen of our own country. It may, perhaps, be doubted, whether the emancipation of slaves in England, pro nounced at the end. of the last century, was not more owing to the increased refinement of the sentiments and manners of the age, rather than to the decay of the two systems of villanage, one of which had ex pired 200 years before, and the other 150 years at least, and which then only slumbered in the me mory of a few antiquaries. The opinion of Lord Mansfield upon this immediate subject made a very small part of his celebrated speech ; it is almost. confined to a particular portion of it. There is hardly any thing else that is expressed, save se veral well-merited civilities to the gentlemen of his bar, and some expressions of contempt for the danger and jealousy that might he encountered, but of ss hich none ever appear to have occasioned any reasonable alarm. Thus fell a system which had existed in this country without doubt, and which ' had been occasionally forced upon its colonies, u:,:1 has continued to this day—that is, above 50 years—without further interruption. It is certainly severely to be lamented, that at the time this great alteration happened, care was not taken, by the attention of Parliament, to settle the present question upon a permanent footing, if it were still to be considered an unsettled question. The arguments of Counsel, in that decisive case of Summersett, do not go further than ao the extinction of slavery 111 England, as unsuitable to the genius of the country, and to the modes of enforcement. They look no further than to the peculiar nature, as it were, - of our own soil—the air of our island is too pure for slavery to breathe in; and those methods of force and vio lence which are necessary to restrain it, are not prac ticable upon this spot. The argements of Counsel do not go farther than this ; and Mr. Hargrave, one of the Counsel, who distinguished himself very much in that character, by very laborious exertions, almost in direct terms asserts that they cannot go beyond it; for, in answer to a proposition which had been made to him, that a modified slavery should be per mitted in England, which would be followed in the Colonies, he expressly says, then (taking it for granted that the modified slavery in England would not at all affect the condition of slavery in the Co lonies) that upon the removal to the place, slavers' would again attach upon him with more tha n its' usual severity. It could hardly be otherwise than that that gentleman was looking towards the neces sary countenance of slavery in its severest form, produced by the return of the slave into the Co lonies. It is very observable, that Lord Mansfield, When he struggled hard to decline the office of de termining the question in England, confines that question almost in terms to this country ; he limits is expressly to this country, for he says " the ques tion now is, whether any dominion, authority, or coercion can be exercised on a slave in this country. According to the American laws (meaning thereby the laws of the West Indies), the service performed by the slaves without wages is a clear indication that they did not consider themselves free by coining here." In the final judgment he delivers himself thus—" The state of slavery is so odious that no thing can be suffered to support it but positive law." That is, the slavery as it existed in the West Indies, for it is to that he looks, considering that many of the adjuncts that belonged to it there were not ad missible under the law of England. Lord Mansfield very justly observes, that " if the merchants consi der the prohibition of slavery in this country of suffi cient commercial concern,. an application to Parlia 'tient is the best, and, perhaps, - the only method of settling the point for the future." In conformity to this advice, it is much to be lamented that such an application was not made to Parliament to settle the question upon a right footing, if it were still to be considered as a dependent question. It might have saved a world of trouble and suffering to both par ties, which is now to be produced by the springing up of this question at a very late hour of the day. The unfortunate descendants of these persons, if born within the colony, have come slaves into the World, and, in some instances, have suffered all the consequences of real slavery, though possessed of independence and affluence acquired in the mother country ; and the proprietors of these slaves are now called upon to give up to the public all the slaves that they have thus acquired by descent—and where these persons so born have once descended at any period of their lives into the country of their parents ; and this not only in Antigua, but most probably in all the islands of the Archipe lago ; for it cannot be supposed that this claim, if maintained with respect to this island, will not be extended to all the others. These are matters that might have cost, at that time of slay, comparatively little expence and little suffering; but which now cannot he settled without a gross violation of im portant interests on one side or the other. It ap pears to me to be a strong presumption in favour of the parties charged with violating the law, that neither the persons so charged, nor those who had an interest in preventing it, have, within the space of 50 years that have elapsed, even in one instance, called the attention of English justice towards it. Black s eamen have navigated West Indian ships to this island, but we have not heard of other slave markets, nor has the public been much gratified with .eemplaints of their desertion, though it is probable that eeme may have taken, and not unfairly, the ad vantage that vas held out by the law. Ido not think that the fact remaining dormant w so long could . have happened without ae marked difference of its ; origin and history from that of ec t e ordinary slave trade. Thc; system of slavery in our West India colonies was perisct in every part, if I may use that expression, meaning thereby that perfection which ever exists in the adequacy of the means to produce the intended effect. It was a system not to be thrown oat of use, because of being incapable of being used in the full extent in England. With the 'laws, H of the colonies it could be conciliated. That system 107 3,S Complet el y armed at every point, and though frequently softened, as in the case of domestic slares,it was in nowise deficieptin compelling the obe dience ci its subjects; whereas in Englainl it was totally impot.ept, and the law could not borrow those instruments from a foreign law which was necessary to make the system work reoperly. This may have occasioned 9ne great difference between the two systems. The fact certainly is, that it never has happened that the slavery .9.1 an African returned from England has been interrupted ip the colonies, in consequence of this sort of limited liberation con ferred upon them in England. There has been no act or ceremony of manumistion, nor any act what ever? that could even formally destroy those various powers of property which the owner possessed over his slave by the most solemn assurances of law, such as pledging him, or eellip him for the payment of the Qwner's debts, or making any ether use of him that the law warranted. Suc h rights coliki not b,e extinguished by wye silence, or by this cou ntr y declining to act in such a convey ance. There is nothing bat makes a liberation fto;p slavery ; lie goes back to a pla ce w h er e slaver y awaits him, and where experience has taught him that slavery is not to be avoided. Slaves have come into this island and passed - out of it in yeturning to thewhatever coloniees the the same character of slime, miht b intermediate character which t h e y possessed in Eng land; and this without any interruption, or without any doubt belonging to their character in that servile state. They go back with a perfect knowledge of the state which they are to re-enter. I cannot but think that if the sovereign state has looked upon the manner in which the law has been understood and exercised in a subject country, without interposing in any manner to prevent it, it has been, in fact, more criminal, if the case is to be so considered, than the subject country, which has followed the unpro hibited practice. It has been said, that in the de cline of the ancient villanage, it became a maxim of very popular and legal use, " Once free for an hour, free for ever !" and this has been applied as a maxim that ought to govern in the case of negro slavery. Now if this negro slavery was an exact transcript of the ancient villanage, it might not be improperly so contended; but it is to be observed, that in the first place, this was a maxim introduced when the system of villanage itself was in a state bordering upon decay, and growing to general abhorrence and contempt ; and it is to be noticed likewise, that this system of villanage was to be confined to this kindom, thongh other countries had customs and usages of a similar nature. It was no part of a system extending into foreign countries or transmarine possessions. Vil lanage did not travel out of the country—did not affect the stability of any law which this c ountry could consider as peculiar to its foreign possessions ; and it has never been once applied since the case of gummerset, to overrule the authority of the trans. marine law. This cry, it is to be observed, is men tioned as a peculiar cry of Englishmen, as against those two species of slavery. It could interest none but the people of this country, and of those only the masters, for no one else had any interests in the duty or seevices of their villains. This cry has . not, as far as we know, attended the state of slavery in any other country, though that has been a state so pre valent in every other part of the world, and has ex isted at all times. ft may now be of use to consider what has been the effect of other cases, very few of which occur of any great affinity with the 'case of Summersett. There is a case which happened in the Court of Chancery, before the determination of Lord Mansfield, which was in 1762, under Lord Chancellor Northington—l mean the case of" Shan ley v. Harvey." A bill was filed by Edward Shan ley, as administrator of Margaret Hamilton, deceased, against Joseph Harvey, a negro slave, and two per sons of the names of Gassop and Thorpe, his trus trees, for an account of part of the personal estate of the deceased. it happened that Shanley had twelve years before brought over this slave to this country, he being then only eight or nine years old, and pre sented him to his niece, Margaret Hamilton, who had baptized him and changed his name ; and on the 9th of July, 1752, she, being very ill, about an hour before her death, directed Harvey to take out a purse which was in her dressing-case drawer, and delivered it to him, saying, " Here, take this; there is 700/. or 800/. for you in Bank -notes, and some more in mo ney, but I cannot directly tell what ; but it is all for you, to make you happy. Make haste, put it in your pocket." He then knelt down and thank ed her. She said, " God bless you ! make a good use of it." The Lord Chancellor Northington, in dismissing the bill with costs, said that " as soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free." It must be observed that this is the first time probably that this doctrine was so broadly stated in an Eng lish court, and perhaps a little prematurely ; but it must likewise be observed, that his Lordship Nere mentions only two effects of it, for he adds, " A' negro may maintain an action against his master for ill usage, and may have a habeas eorpus, if restrain ed of his liberty." This is an instance in which the laws of England differed most essentially from the law of the slave code in the West India colonies ; for there every acquisition by the slave, whether by legacy or otherwise, went to the master. But not so here, where the law of England adjudged it to the slave. And the Lord Chancellor enumerates another difference; which is, that the law of England empowered the slave to bring an action against his master for the recovery of his wages. Both of these are direct contradictions to the rules of the Slave Code ; but nobody could infer from thence that the whole of the Slave Code was by that decision in tended to be vacated in the colonies on that account. The error of the opinion seems to be, that because the Slave Code was overruled in England, where the law of England differs, from it, it was therefore abrogated in the colotries . in toto. The slave con tinues a slave, though the law of England relieves him in those respects from the rigour.; of that code while he is in England ; and that is all that it does. With respect to other severities which it refuses to inflict, it it spinis de pluribus una, which does not at all dislodge the other severities of that code,all of which he may avoid by continuing in this country. Scot land and Ireland have the same privilege, as beingmem hers of the same confederation ; and the Scotch Judges have well expressed their opinion of the ex tent of the judgment of Lord Mansfield, in the case of " Knight v. Wedderburn," in the year 1778, a case argued with great ability, in which they deter mined the extent of this judgment to be, that the dominion assumed over the negro by the law of Ja maica could not be supported in this country. What does this prove, but the well-known fact, that dif ferent countries have different laws upon the same subject ; and even different provinces of the same kingdom ? It is a large chapter, and full of many diffrent questions, that treats of such diversities, in the writings of civilians. All that the Judges in the different cases I have adverted to have determined, is, that slaves coming into England are free there, and that they cannot be sent out of the country by any process to be there executed. I come now to consider the adjudged cases which have been ad verted to, and there are very few which at all touch upon this point ; and I cannot but think that the cases could have been much more numerous and more applicable, if the opinion had prevailed that the case of Summersett had warranted a conclusion of the wide import that is contended for. The first case is that of " Keane v. Boycott," in the Court of King's Bench. In that case it appeared that a negro, whilst an infant, and in a state of slavery in the island of St. Vincent, executed a contract, by which he bound himself to his then master, who was coming to England, to act as his servant for five years, and the action was brought for enticing the boy from the service of his master into the mi litary service, which the boy accepted. An action was brought by the master against the officer who had enticed him ; and it was determined that it was a good contra"t, voidable only at the instance of the bay, but not void, and therefore could not act as a defence to the action against the officer. But this has nothing to do with slavery, from which, of course, the boy was free from his ar rival in England. It turns entirely upon the con tract, and therefore in no manner touches the question. The next case in point of date to which the case t o h f e „ C ‘ o v u i r i ts li ' am a s tte v n . ti ß on ro h w a n s , ,h ee re n p c o a r l t l e e d d, and Palter. That was the case of a runawa y ne g ro IN ) v y as ßosanquet slave, who had come to England, and entered into a contract with the master of a vessel to serve as a seaman during the voyage to and from the East In dies. The ship was bound to Grenada, the very island from wllich the man had deserted, and where, on the arrival of the vessel, he was discovered by his master, who claimed him as his slave, and who sub sequently agreed with the Captain; of th e vessel to sell his manumission for a price which the master of the vessel paid ; whereupon the manumitted slave entered into a contract with such master to serve for three years. Upon his return to England, he sued the master of the vessel for his wages for the voyage, and had a Verdict ; but a rule Nisi was obtained, and afterwards argued in the Corinnon Pleas by Lord - Alvenley, Mr. Justice Heath, Mr. Justice Rooke, and Mr: Justice Chambre. Mr. Sergeant Shep herd, who was Counsel for the man, and was well known as a person who would never omit any plea that would be useful to his client, never argued the point that because the man had been in England, a nd was free there, he was consequently free at Grenada ; and Mr. Justice Heath obserVed, that when the man " was claimed at Grenada, he was incapable of per forming the service for which he now brings his ac tion. He wag liable," he says," tp severe punish ment for having run away from his master ; 'he was a s lave for life." Mr. Justice Rooke said, that • • k "though the man might enter into a contract to go to any other place but to Grenada, yet he could not engage to go there without danger of being de tained ;" and further that, " being a runaway slave, he became liable to punishment, arid the forfeiture tc his master in Grenada of all the wages which he hae earned during the outward voyage." After arriving there he became liable to punishment ; "and being:: slave in Grenada, he could not enter into any contract there without the leave of his master." Mr. Justice Chambre observed, that " being claimed as a run away slave, he considered as a criminal—he wan liable to very severe punishment—he was incapablii of recovering, for his own benefit, the money which he had earned upon the outward-bound voyage." He adds, that " from the contract he would receive no benefit, for his master was entitled to all thd wages he might earn." Lord Alvanley, who dis agreed with the other Judges as to the effect of the contract merely, but not upon the general question; stated, " the plaintiff being as free as any of us while in England. engaged to serve the defendant; who undertook to pay him a stipulated sum; and adverting to the agreement entered into at Grenada, whereby lie obtained his manumission, his Lordship further stated, "that he was thereby redeemed front slavery and the penal consequences attending his then situation ;" and he proceeds thus—" When the plaintiff was claimed in Grenada as a runaway slave, he was not only liable to be remanded into slavery, but, by the laws of the island, he was amenable to severe punishment." The man was clearly entitled to his freedom when he first engaged in the service of the ship in London, although a run , away ; at least if there be any truth in these ex pressions—" that as soon as a man sets his foot in England—if he breathes the air of England—he Ts free without any further ceremony ;" and it cannot he denied to him, although a runaway, as ob served by Lord Alveuley, that this runaway was as free as any of us in England. But it appears that this runaway negro was, to pre ' serve his freedom in Grenada, under the necessity of obtaining a manumission there ; and he subse quently enjoyed his freedom in consequence of that ceremony ; or, as that manumission implies, must have remained a slave in Grenada without it. It is a clear .recognition of the necessity of a manumission in that country notwithstanding he had been in England, and the judges were all concordant in that particu lar, though Lord Alvanley expressed some doubt as to the validity of the contract upon other grounds. I think that' this case bears directly upon the point, and is a direct recognition of the principle contended for, that a slave who returns to his country, returns to a state of slavery. It is not to be said the man's desertion is alleged as the cause of his return to slavery; he had become a freeman by landing in England, in the opinion of all the judges; and it is only by virtue of his pre-existing state of slavery that he became subject to be returned into it again, until his manumission. The four judges all concur in this,—that he was a slave in Grenada, though a free man in England, and although he would have continued a free man in all other parts of the world excepting Grenada. I have been the more particu lar in stating this case, because I do not think it ap proaches so near as to possess the authority of a direct decision upon the immediate subject, although I have heard the question sometimes quoted, as al most amounting to a direct recognition of the free dom of the slave, on account of his having been in England, when nothing can be more clear than that it is in every respect a direct decision of the four Judges to the contrary. The case of " Forbes v. Cochrane and Cockburn" has also been adverted to, which seems to me to tend, though perhaps not so directly, towards the same conclusion. This case happened in consequence of the flight of a number of slaves belonging to Mr. Forbes, a sub ject of East Florida, on board one of his Majesty's ships of war, commanded by Sir George Cock , burn, acting under the command of Admiral Cochrane. These slaves were reclaimed by Mr. Forbes, who insisted upon Sir George Cock burn's sending them back. Sir George Cockburn declined this, saying, " that they had taken refuge on board of an English man-of-war, and that they were free from any constraint of his, although he had no objection, if Mr. Forbes could prevail upon them to return; but hailing received them into his ship, lie could not- . llirect them to be turned out ;" and that defence was sustained by the Court of Common Pleas. In truth, this is no more than a decision respecting the known privilege of ships of war, which are allowed: to share in the privileges of their own country ; and so, far it may be deemed an assertion of the law of the country. It was likewise decided, that if any attempt had been made, by force, to take the men out of that station, the parties guilty of making that attempt would have been liable to a prosecution under the law of England. Re ference has been made to a local act, passed by the people of Antigua themselves, in the year 1816, to the effect that, if any person claiming to he free should be committed as a runaway or supposed run away slave, and it shall appear to the justices that "he or she is legally free, or in equity or conscience ought to be considered as free, or hath been gene rally deemed or considered for any length of time a free person," the justices shall by their warrant di rect such person to be immediately discharged out of custody. The first of these—that of being " legally free"—is clearly out of the question, upon the grounds which I have stated on the general question : and I think the second—that of being " in e quity or con science" considered free, cannot be applicable to slaves coming from England, to whose condition such privilege had been universally denied, upon this plain ground—that a residence in England as a free man had never been held to answer this description. It is what at all times, and at the present time, has been powerfully resisted. That temporary freedom has ever been contended as being superseded upon the return of the slave, and they never have been deemed and considered as free per sons on their return to Antigua and the other colo nies. They cannot, therefore, be considered as hav ing ever at all answered the description contained in this legislative enactment. A similar objection lies against the third. It is obvious that this cannot apply to slaves who have returned to England, but to those who might for a time have acquired a no minal freedom by rambling in the colonies under a character of freedom, real or pretended, and if shown to be clearly founded in error, it could not lead to a consequence of freedom. It never could have been intended, by this law, to have given freedom to persons claiming it in consequence of their coining front England ; for that, as I have observed, has been uniformly resisted by the people of Antigua. And it is a known and universal rule in the interpretation of laws, that that sense is to be put on those laws which is the sense affixed to them by the legislators. If persons have been rambling about the country under a false character, and that pretension is dis proved, they can no longer obtain the benefits which are assigned to it. Those who contend for this in terpretation of the law, as giving freedom to slaves merely because they have been in England, are bound to show that ever since the local act, persons return ing from England have been allowed freedom upon their return, where not objected to on the part of the slaves themselves. Referepee has also been made to another act which had passed previously, and said to form part of the local law of that colony, in which it is declared that they acknowledge no other law than the common law of England, so far its it stands unaltered by any written law of that island, or by some Act of Parliament, Now this enumeration of their laws omitted a very material source from whence other laws were derived—that of legitimate "custom ; and if that could not be deem ed a venial omission, it surely would be a gross abus ing of all principle to say, that upon that account they should be deprived of their eomtnerce, which every other island in that archipelago had uniformly possessed, and which the sovereign state had pro moted and encouraged in all of them. It might not have occurred to the gentlemen of that island to in sist upon custom, so protected, to be a s ource of laws ; and omission of this kind, in d escr ibing the sources of law, ear never have the effect of disabling that efficacy which has not only been exercised both before and since the framing of that decree, but has been guaranteed and protected to the utmost by the laws of the mother country, in common with the state of the other islands in the same part of the world. Having adverted to most of the objections that arise to the revival of slavery in the Colonies, I have first to observe, that it returns upon the slave by the same title by which it grew up originally. It never was in Antigua the creature of law, but that of custom, which operates with the force of law; and when it is cried out that mains MISS abolendus est, it is first to be proved that, even in the consideration of England, the use of slavery is there considered as a mains usus in the colonies: Is that a mains usus which the Court of the King's Privy Council and the Courts of Chan cery are every day carrying into full effect in all con siderations of property, in the one by appeal, and the other by original causes ; and all this enjoined and confirmed by statutes ? Still less is it to be consi dered a Indus usus in the colonies themselves, where it has been incorporated into full life and establish ment; where it is the system of the state, and of every individual in it : and fifty years have passed without any authorized condemnation of it in Eng; _land as a mains usus in the colonies. The fact is, that in England, where villanage of both sorts went into total decay, they had communication with no other country; and therefore i% is triumphantly declared, as I have before observed, " once a free man, ever a free man," there being no other country with which we had immediate connexion, in which, at the time of suppression of that system, we had any occasion to trouble ourselves about. But slavery was a very favoured introduction into the colonies ; it was deemed a great source of the mer cantile interest of the country, and. was, on that s.scount, largely considered by the mother country as a great source of its health and strength. Treaties were made on that account, and the co lonies compelled to submit to those treaties by the authority of this country. This system continued entire; instead of being condemned as mains uses, it was regarded as a most eminent source of its riches and power. It was at a late period of the last cen tury that it was condemned in England as an insti tution not fit to exist here, for reasons peculiar to our own condition ; but it has been continued in our colonies, favoured and supported by our own courts, which' have liberally imparted to it their protection and - encouragement. To such a system, whilst it so supported, I rather feel it to be too strong to apply the maxim mains uses abolendus est. The time may come when this institution may fall in the colonies, as other institutions have done in other flourishing countries; but I am of opinion that it can only be effected at the joint expence of both countries; for it is in a peculiar measure the crime of this country, and I rather feel it to be an objection to this species of emancipation, that it is intended to be a very cheap measure here, by throwing the whole expence upon the colony. It has been said that the law of England discourages slavery, and so it certainly does within the limits of these islands ; but it uses a very different language, and exerts a very different force, when it looks to its colonies; for to this trade, in those colonies, it gives an almost un bounded protection, and it is in the habit of do ing so at the present time in many exercises of public authority; and even since slavery has become odious in England, it has been fully supported by the authority of many statutes for the purpose of carrying it into full effect in the colonies. All the efforts of the persons who have contended for its abolition in the colonies, and who have obtained many acts of Parliament for the regulation of it therein, have in no degree weakened the force of those English statutes which so powerfully support it in the mother country. It has been observed that the sovereign state has declared, that all laws made in the colonies, contradicting its own law, shall be null and void, and cannot be put in execution; but is that the character of the laws in the colonies for the encouragement of the proprietors of slaves ? Has it not, since the declaration of its judgment against slavery, declared in the most explicit and authentic manner, its encouragement of slavery in its colonial establishments ? Have not innumerable acts passed which regulate the condition of slaves, which tend to consider them, as the colonists themselves do, as yes positce iii commercio,—as goods and chattels, —as subject to mortgages,—as constituting part of the value of the estates as liable to be taken in execution for debt,---to be publicly sold for such purposes ? And has established courts of its highest jurisdiction for the carrying into execu tion provisions for all the purposes ? and these its most eminent courts of justice—its Court of King's Privy Council, and its Court of Chancery, where all these regulations are carried into effect with most scrupulous regularity, and under the au thority of Acts of Parliament ? Can any man doubt that, at this time of day, slaves in the colonies may not be transferred by sale made in England, and which would be affirmed without reference to the court so empowered; and how, under the guarantee of such protection, can it be asserted that the taw of England does not, support, and in a high degreefa your, the law of slavery in its West In dia colonies, however it may discourage it in the mother country? It is not most certain that this trade of the colonies has been the very favourite trade of this country, and so continues, so far as can be judged of en couragement given in various forms—the making of treaties, the institution of companies, the devo lution from one company to another, the compulsion of the colonies to accept this traffic, and the recog nition of it in a great variety of laws ? If it be a sin, it is a sin in which this country has had its full share of the guilt, and ought to bear its proportiOn of the redemption. How this country can decline to perform the act of justice, in performing the act of charity, men of great wisdom and integrity have not been able to discover. The example of France has been glanced at, which has adopted a more decided policy with regard to its colonial slaves. It certainly discouraged the entry of slaves into France, not permitting it according to the first edict passed in 1716, but by the permission of the Governor or Commandant of the colony ; and that edict com mands the slaves to return to the colonies at the in stance of the master. But in the event of the mas ter not having obtained permission for the slave to go the mother country, m that case he was declared to be free. France did not therefore do as this country had done,—put their liberty, as it were, into a sort of parenthesis; but it denied them freedom in France, and held them bound to their masters if the regulations had been complied with by them. In 1736, an alteration took place by a further edict, whereby, if the regulations had not been attended to, the slave was not, as before, entitled to his free dom ; but he became forfeited to the Crown, to be sent backto . be employed in the public works of the colonies. 'Whether - that is the footing upon which the question now stands, I am not informed, and do not feel it to be of importance in determin ing this question. I believe they have been more zealous in Christianizing their slaves, than we have formerly been. England, the general sovereign of all its colonies, has been looking on with indiffer ence, and permitting daily occurrences of this kind to pass tinder its eyes, without taking any steps whatever to correct them ; and with all the in dulgence which has been shown to the efforts of gentlemen who have manifested a zeal for the emancipation of slaves, the system of law has been little relaxed. Our own domestic po licy continues to be actively employed in sup porting the rights of proprietors over the per sons committed to their authority in the character of slaves 7 It cannot be denied that cases have been mentioned by Dr. .L.shington,—l know not to what extent 3,IWY prevail,--but, in any extent, they are cases which must excite the sympathy of every considerate man, and call for remedy to be admini stered by the mother country, if it is not supplied That persons brought up with by the colony itself. the expectation of eonsiderable wealth, Acquired in this or other countries, should be subjected to the reverses of fortune, w hich m a y befall them upon visiting the country of their parents at an advanced period of life, is a most severelardship- —that they should be compelled to submit to the humiliation • ‘4l/ '!4* which may attend them in any acquired sit sti° l l, upon such return, is to be much lamented; boinii these are matters happily within the power, certainly within the justice, of Parliament, to r!, medy by some general correctives. Lord I.llausfie; I observed, recommended to the merchants to 08 .',4, application to Parliament for any purposes wn i , t , they might deem requisite on the subject. It can i n) I think, be denied, that there are purposes for WI/ such an application might be deemed emine_„nti, useful—cases in which the representatives of tro-t lies who have acquired property in Englon` g o elsewhere, and who have returned at a v-if mature age to those islands, are certainly s ' e e ,, fit objects to be relieved from a state of i nt o f minable slavery ; for a return to a co nditio n :0 slavery must operate upon them and others, r t at all under similar circumstances, with an tap', severity; .and at any rate, the humanity of P A ment could not be employed to a more be ne p,io effect, if the colonists themselves should D e e perform it Lord STOWELL, after-Mr. Dodson had conellitiejar added a few observations, in which his L o rdshiP,,, , e clAred, that his decision was the result of c oagr o j tious conviction, without any prepossession, from close consideration of statutes. His Lorar, Orr accordingly pronounced against the appeal, a l , ing the sentence of the judge in the court be with costs. The case was not remitted, owing to a qu ei yet undecided as to the measure of restitutio n ' , '0 The other four analogous caes stand 01 "0 1 0 order that counsel may consider whether, s fte i f foot judgment, they are sufficiently distinguis hed o' the.present case to require the Court's furt her pion. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. • FRENCH PAPERS. - (From the Gazette de France, Nov. 5.) CoNSTANTINOPLE, OCT. 10.—Our sitastlerity still the same. The Porte invariably persists in ot principles which it has once proclaimed. CTed receipt of the dispatch by which Ibrahim ono that he was blockaded by the squadrons of the and that he desired fresh instructions, the 0 1 ' 3 ;0 peered very indifferent, though it was go,. t o, thought at Pera that the Sultan would de els % blockade a great violation of the rights of nat i()" would in consequence adopt serious measured Those delays on the part of the Porte , t'l l a attempt at an immediate pacification, excite '7O that we shall see the war terminate withotit not alarming crisis. However, this uncertaintY last long, especially as Ibrahim, it is said, liroo ceived orders from the Sultan to quit Nayarit° tit sail for Patras. If he executes this orde r wit „side consent of the Allied Fleets, the Sultan will e ° 'lll l , the convention of the 6th of July as illusorY_ : . meets with obstacles, the Porte must explB4.ll in a positive manner. It is believed that o° o o l will be decided in a fortnight. The embarroll, of the Divan is visible. The capital is traocltod commerce is in a worse situation than a t the my last letter. There has been several cline the departments of the Admiralty and the k i , n i 0 re' The rich Armenian banker, Tinghir °gin, r „ t ,: 1 1° : fused to advance money to the Governoe'il e been banished from Constantinople with tlitar,ol family, and sent to Asia. The Oriente /S Pf d bort Smyrna, has just been suppressed.- - fi * Gazette. 05r - BARCELONA, OCT. 27.—The Count t at e having cleared the districts thY were ill fors"Tatfr the greatest fermentation, has just set out „b e sr gona. He has caused a great many rebe ls end Ole, who were taken with arms in their hands , "-‘, 0" almost all of them deserters from the ar m , l i . o' l engagement which took place at Corrniuesnd the wards the Ebro), between the Royal troops s " f iet 4 insurgents, was rather serious: 15 of the latter killed, and 80 taken prisoners. -a; 'li' ci It is reported this eveni n g that the ',d, Vick who was going to Tarragona by the, ~/ $0 order, died on the road to Santa Colonnade" i , 0 11 " jt, The 3d Regiment of Light Infantr/ ' - arc h fi eased under the walls oft his place on its 111 , a b, 'Tarragona. It conducts a detachment ,°' , i: 50 prisoners, at the head of whom is C°' °n-1 o r lester, bound, and a considerable number of l ' l loaded, it is said, with 3,000 muskets. . (From the Constitutioss e ". o 4 ,,, ne le BARCELONA, OCT. 25.—General -LA S P -14- f til e cleared Lampourdan of the factious. S °lne ° 0 e ° officers of his division assert, that they ha% 1, ;di longer any body to pursue; for all the facti? taken flight, and is now coll ected at Ma i ' 1; Cabrenys, and other pints on the frontier, r°ool.l approachrefuge ; ,assoelloornebaesi butchers General ho e af n i e : m e l ragi E rees s a, p t : fi ct e roe 1 5: 0 the frontiers. The troops of the King, in entering & fe w! tookT ‘Two soeLfvietahndeops these thei so n n tr e or r or s ttp, who: ;aotef tpwheeerrseoKnsi persons o gNN t . se i hr m eo m ts e r i c: e : 7 3 ; smith of Talaxa tb rebels. 0 pe was 0 I/ A Nlanres an, of the e cu r r e a v te nl J n i t t i i n m n p a e r r y , who 'has the members arr T es l t t e e d band of the rebel L ag uard ju ia ntl:v iffi lle:ll beaten and dispersed, that Chief presented dr at Tarragona to make his submission. big hot' in At wh i L ch le n ri ffi da c , er a s deacon was n w c a e s b ar ee r n es s t t e a d tio in le i r - ; eri ofte ; Pa O ris cT a o r n r Eivited27h.eTeA y n est e e x il t i ra ny erd w it i i t a h ry desvat c i it troops who are to come was sent from Tarragona General Reizet. K t , Six thousand military beds are Trepatilettr with all speed; they are destined,' it. IS said, k rid w ith the Court. "' e di t War at Madrid, in order to obtain its °pill' Ilie to the Supreme C° ll ye the fate of the rebels who have subinitt%f # 4 ,. 1. ; answer to that case is arrived. The eoto ell - ,,f tli h e a h v i e efs had mi t i i i n ta d r e y r or th ecirivielixac"l:;;t: it is said, divides the offence and punishment , submitting rebels into three classes :...... b , WI commanded divisions, regiments, separate bands, no matter what may have h e 'ic importance of them. A to rsl 4 , 2. Those who may have supplied fon -9 bands, or to maintain them when raised. ~ "3. The mass of the revolt - " 0 0 revolters." AI C ; The council proposes that the military 0 ;t . OP thO c se l. :lt h o e prised in the first class shall be depriv ed ,„; lif e 4 ' i ranks and honours, and sent to the grilles '-e-iviliro comprised in the first class ; but as theNts the t o rank nor honours to lose, it advses that hes,loote the T T e l l ic i e e te s gallies for life, they should pay fines proe rti 11 A 1• 56 0 e pay fines proportionate to their means, ° i n- , l' f i c e , exiled to other provinces of the king" ° i; P e ' f tb" they shall remain under the surveillance of t 00 0 to As for the 3d class, the council proese.,itioAfor solute pat don, accompanied by their rest6;e/er',l)- their civil rights. They are to remain! h ° ‘ O il a period more or less considerable, tinder th e I , e lance of the local authorities.. v 0 . so 1 0 Such are the propositions which it is o ne' been made to the King by the supreme e° 1 .6 1 war. T. ' FROM TU W - ENVIRONS OF PUYCERPA, to o l b The day before yesterday the Mierluele of' d c e e r Cerdagne, who had made a reconnoissal; pl c 0 side of Baga, conducted to the prisons °, ii , a 0 0 11 30 Agraviados, whom they had surpriseobeip, .00, where they were carousing. One of t iot eO l beil had appeared at the windows with hostile, with t was killed, and the others surrendered biori:0001 arms and ammunition, without striking a j e o,' l ig PERPIGNAN, OCT. 27.--The Comt e le f t re fal individualsna nt:oef lituiineiisrhcfmoomretnputrniiesses .d inflictedi n th e o s :. e o b c n a o t t t i tBl : e i ° l i n e :rj i l e : er°P i. l e first aide-de-camp to Comte d'Espag li ki, eft,ter l nan on the 24th of this month far She Pfr-cto filling his mission with the Prefect of t p re fie ri Pyrenees. His entrance into France Y: ev er) r i l l! occasioned some difficulties, which, howectvici soon lemoved in consideration oth f e e , o ire joutney. The Comte de Mirasol was a by as i orderly escorted his bl onefrontier to regulations ; 1 stood. Besid Voy intended cnrsion int o t The numb, department o ecclesiastics, rent province foss the hon e their blindne: stead of part be anxiouri BAy oNsr , , Auch, as the the second el two companil Ports granted Wider th e of the ainn ta e ; that searcel nish territ Y thet, and conor ); t lia, in or d E • w " ° has mad will he saver] (F 1 CONSTAN^ been, inform(' armistice, f trurals, Th nation, Th results of ti chan ges hay tillery depar rehip e i ato the island Colonel gab fr anerrke : en e t°eit n it t C.k . :i ;: t Per Cent' " ed _per Cent Ne g an gib, 1826 ^ L Ann.' ".i4 St k oc - Bonds ptreF.s or r lutrian Bond u razilian hiCen on( n os an Ayres DittColonll,l4,7, cq umish, ". Greek B Ditto, !825onds ... Guatemala . xi Mo ca , B ••• 1) 0.1825 . on, PRICES 1 4' 1 4 . 114u M OtO L a Unit e d It• Am st CC Z't;-. "da nt. ercian t 4 1 ar o t t o W n b w :tiril l : 13,;'r,T#?, 3' ''' '''' itx ''''''' . Berii„ a ux .... i5i........ rxstittt on et h 4i taCadire ... d ......... Babo ......... I3a a.. rev_ ....... r lvili k°4 a ....... 9rs ved. 2 Amer pßrazil , Buenc n Fland • • ,c ran e Gotte l uen Mor ttl W RT)NE . UP '. to li gente : te atike t i fron lf ; . 4-40w 4 f , or, and 1411)9'11u Pave to We. Pari F rance olltains %zeite da te of 4tt iele, Whi,h l '"eipt filling ' hi rn t. we k nc that hi by the the Il e ternpk fOr Posith t hat ai • b y the : teceivi to the . ha rne ; of srn whi ch the su th e T. Fr om the in I% env "ern: w oull temp, ,-