# A memoir of Granville Sharp/Section 2

Layout 2
​demur or doubt on account of the plaintiff's complexion or idea of private property urged against him."
On the 20th February, 1771, the trial was had at the King's Bench, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield presiding. But so fraught was Mansfield's mind still, with the false views of the day, that although the jury, found Stapylton "guilty," the Chief Justice (such is justice often in human hands!) refused to proceed to judgment, and the criminals escaped. Against this proceeding of the judge, as against an open contempt of the laws of England, Sharp prepared a strong protest. The principles on which he proceeded, are thus expressed by himself, in a letter to Lord Carysport, in 1781: "This is the compendium or sum total of all my politics, so that I include them in a very small compass. I am thoroughly convinced that 'Right' ought to be adopted and maintained, on all occasions, without regard to consequences either probable or possible; for these (when we have done our own duty as honest men) must after all be left to the disposal of Divine Providence, which has declared a blessing in favor of right, 'Blessed are the keepers of judgment—and he that doeth righteousness at all times.'" Ps. cvi. 3.
SECTION II.
BUT the general right to freedom in England was yet made a matter of opinion. No permanent security was obtained against the pertinacious avarice and tyranny of the slaveholders and slave-dealers. This question wanted decision and both parties wished it decided. The slave party, wrapt in selfishness and deluded by legal sophistries, felt confident in their claims—and the friends of liberty, clothed in righteousness and firm in everlasting truth, knew that British law, brought forth in its purity, would support ​them. The case of James Somerset was chosen as the subject of trial.
This man 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 had him suddenly seized and carried on board the Ann and Mary, Captain Knowles, in order to be taken to Jamacia and there sold for a slave.
On 7th February, 1772, the cause was tried in the King's Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, aided by Justices Ashton, Welles and Ashurst. 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."
Mr. Davy supported this proposition by the most substantial documents drawn from the history of the country. He showed that the laws of England alone, rule in England; and that the laws of Virginia had no more validity in England, than the laws of Japan. He discussed the argument of convenience, on either side of the question—and concluded by stating the authorities, in various cases, by which it had been decided, that no man could here be the property of another. Of one of these, he thus spoke: "This was in 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.) "That was in the 11th of Queen Elizabeth. I hope my Lord, the air does not blow worse since—I hope they will never breathe here; for this is my assertion, 'the moment they put their foot on English ground, that moment they become free.' They are subject to the laws and they are entitled to the protection of the laws of this country; and so are their masters, thank God."
Mr. Sergeant Glynn followed and powerfully supported Davy.
Here Lord Chief Justice Mansfield was so impressed ​with the weight of law in favor of liberty, yet so perplexed with the sophistries of opinion and precedent, that he deferred the further discussion of the case to the next term.
Granville Sharp availed himself with his usual zeal of this interval, and amongst the other measures by which he sought to secure an equitable decision, he addressed the following letter to Lord North, dated 18th February, 1772.
"My Lord—Presuming that information, concerning every question of a public nature, must of course be agreeable to your Lordship, I have ventured to lay before you a little tract, against tolerating slavery in England.
"His Majesty has been pleased lately to recommend to Parliament 'the providing new laws for supplying defects, or remedying abuses in such instances where it shall be requisite', and I apprehend my Lord, that there is no instance whatever, which requires more immediate redress, than the present miserable and deplorable slavery of Negroes and Indians, as well as white English servants!! in our colonies. I say, immediate redress, because to be in power and to neglect, even a day, in endeavoring to put a stop, to such monstrous injustice and abandoned wickedness, must necessarily endanger a man's eternal welfare, be he ever so great in temporal dignity or office.
"Nevertheless I don't mention this, as a subject proper for Parliamentary consideration: for the laws of England (God be thanked) are sufficiently clear with respect to slavery in this island. And though some enormous outrages have now and then been committed by ignorant masters, in attempting to carry off by force their quondam slaves, yet, if the Judges do their duty, by determining according to the laws already in force (for Judicandum est Legibus, non Exemplis' 4 Ca. 33, 'We must judge by law not by precedent,') there will be no necessity for Parliament to interfere.
"And with respect to the Colonies, the pernicious practice of slaveholding being tolerated by distinct laws of their own, cannot with propriety fall under the consideration of the British Parliament; for I am well aware, that no Parliament ​can have a just right to enact laws for places, which it does not represent. The remedy of these notorious abuses therefore, rests entirely with the King and his Privy Council, to recommend to the several assemblies a formal repeal of those unjust laws of which I complain.
"I might alledge indeed, that many of the plantation laws (like every act that contains any thing 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 natural equity, as well as to the laws of God. Yet, as many of them (to the disgrace of the English name) have been long in force, and have had the formal assent of kings, they will require a formal repeal by all the parties, in order to preserve, in each branch of the Legislature, that reciprocal faith, which is due to all solemn compacts. * * * * *
"I have also sent another book, on the same subject, lately printed at Philadelphia, which amongst other things worthy of notice, contains some sensible propositions for abolishing slavery in the Colonies, (see pages 139—141) and that your Lordship may see, the absolute necessity of such a measure I have likewise sent a short, lively representation in MS. of the present state of slavery in Maryland, extracted from a letter, dated in November last, from a gentleman in that province.
"Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Maryland, to a friend in London:
"'But whether I shall go thither or return home, I am yet undetermined; indeed no where shall I stay long from England; for I had much rather enjoy the bare necessaries of life there, than the most affluent circumstances in this country of most wretched slavery. * * * There are four things under the sun, which I equally abhor and abominate, viz. slavery, licentiousness, pride and impudence, all which abound here, in a monstrous degree.
"'The punishments of the poor negroes and convicts, are beyond all conception, being entirely subject to the will of their savage and brutal masters. They are often ​punished for not doing more than strength and nature will admit of; and sometimes because they cannot on every occasion, fall in with their wanton and capricious humors. One punishment is to flay their backs with cow-hides, or other instruments of barbarity, and then pour on hot rum, superinduced with brine or pickle, rubbed in with a corn husk, in the scorching heat of the sun. For certain, if your judges were sensible of the shocking treatment of the convicts here, they would hang every one of them, as infinitely less punishment; and transport only those, whose crimes deserve the severest death. Better be hanged seven hundred times, than serve seven years here: and there is no redress, for magistrates and all, are equally interested and criminal. If I had a child, I had rather see him, the humblest scavenger in the streets of London, than the loftiest tyrant in America, with a thousand slaves at his beck.'
Old Jewry, 18th February, 1772."
In connexion with this letter, Granville Sharp adverting to the existing slave laws of the Colonies, says in his Journal of the same day, (18th Feb. 1772) "If such laws are not absolutely necessary for the government of slaves, the law-makers must unavoidably allow themselves to be the most cruel and abandoned tyrants upon earth, and perhaps, that ever were on earth. But, on the other hand, if it be said that it is impossible to govern slaves, without such inhuman severity and detestable injustice, the same is an invincible argument against the least toleration of slavery among christians; because temporal profits, cannot compensate the forfeiture of everlasting welfare—that the cries of these much injured people will certainly reach heaven—that the scriptures denounce a tremendous judgment against the man, who shall offend one little one—that it were better for the nation that their American dominions had never existed, or even that they had sunk in the sea, than that the kingdom of Great Britain should be loaded with the horrid guilt of tolerating such abominable wickedness," &c.
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 dependant for his present subsistence, and for his future prospects in life, upon the Ministry of the day.
The tract above mentioned as having lately been printed in Philadelphia, was from the pen of the excellent Anthony Benezet, a brother in heart and in deed of Granville Sharp.
On 9th May, the trial of Somerset's case, was resumed.
Mr. Mansfield conducted the defence. He contended, that "If Somerset was a man—and he should conclude him one, till proved otherwise—he could not be a slave in England. The dispute," he said, "was between one human creature and another, the master and the negro, whether the latter was entitled to the important rights which nature had given him. To the charge that he was a slave, the negro might very well answer, 'True, I was a slave; torn from my mother's arms, I was put in chains on board a British ship and carried to America—I was there placed under a master, from whose tyranny, I could not escape: if I had attempted it, I should have been exposed to the severest punishment; and never from the first moment of my life to the present time, have I been in a situation to assert the common rights of mankind. I am now in a country where the rights of liberty are known and regarded; and can you tell me the reason, why I am not to be protected by those laws?' To have such a question answered," continued Mr. Mansfield, "consistently with those laws, seems to me impossible—for, on the contrary, he is as fully and clearly entitled to the protection of those laws, as any one who now hears me."
At the end of Mr. Mansfield's speech, the case was adjourned to the 14th May.
Mr. Hargrave then proceeded with the defence.
"If," said he, "the claim of Stewart over Somerset, be here recognized, domestic slavery, with its horrid train of evils, may be lawfully imported into this country, at the discretion of every foreigner or native. It will come, not only from our own Colonies, but from Poland, Russia, Spain and Turkey—from the coast of Barbary; from the eastern and western coasts of Africa; from every part of ​the world, where it still continues to torment and dishonor the human species. "He then examined, 1st. The right claimed by Stewart over the person of Somerset—and 2d. The authority on which that right was rested. He declared that in "whatever light we view it, slavery is alike pernicious to the person who suffers it, to the person who inflicts it, and to the government which allows its existence." He traced the history of European negro slavery—recorded the interesting fact, that Charles V. in 1740, abolished it in his dominions; and the greedy and disgraceful return to it of the masters, as soon as the imperial prohibition could be evaded. He traced the history of Villeinage in England, and demonstrated that no right could thereon be founded to the claims of the slaveholder.
Mr. Alleyne closed the proceedings on the same side. He examined the distinction between natural and municipal rights—the one of which attaches alike to all men in every country—the other is peculiar to times, circumstances and places. "The right of slavery," he continued, "not being from nature, cannot be imported from another country. Natural relations, are inherent in the nature of things, and nothing can annul them. They arise from the relation which a man bears to mankind in general; and his moral duty results from them. He cannot therefore, change his natural relations—they are universal. Municipal relations are such as arise from being a member of the particular country, where they exist. It appears that by the laws of Virginia, this man is a slave—but the laws of Virginia, rule not in England. In this country, how can this man be a slave, where the meanest have a title to enjoy the rights of freedom. This man is here. He owes submission to the laws of England, and he has a corresponding right to the protection of these laws—he claims that protection—and when" added he, "the judgment of this Court is given, Stewart, as well as the rest of the slaveholders, will know, that this air is too free for a slave to breathe in."
The cause of the slave party was supported by two able and eloquent men, Messrs. Wallace and Dunning. Mr. Wallace spoke immediately after Mr. Alleyne, and dwelt ​mainly upon the inconvenience, absurdity and injustice of divesting a man of his rightful property!! only because he sailed, in pursuit of his lawful business, from one country to another!!
The cause was adjourned to the 21st. The confidence of Lord Mansfield, in York and Talbot's judgment, was plainly shaken; but his leaning was yet clearly to their opinion.
On the 21st the trial was resumed, and Mr. Dunning supported the claims of despotism. Confounding the relation of master and servant, with the relation of master and slave, he insisted upon the universal and indispensable necessity of that relation. Mr. Davy replied, and tore his cobweb to pieces.
Lord Mansfield delayed judgment, and twice threw out a 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 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 never can be supported.) The power claimed by this return, never was in use here. We cannot say the cause set forth by this return, is allowed or approved of by the laws of this kingdom, and therefore the man must be discharged."
Here some important facts and observations present themselves. In this case, we have 1st. a most instructive and delightful instance of the power of truth—and of the impartial justice of British law. The iniquitous web of legality is unwoven. The perversions of legislation, originating in the highest authorities, supported by the greatest names, defended by a powerful faction and assented to by almost every body, are detected and swept away. Law, ceasing to frame mischief, is restored to its own wholesome ​and glorious character, as the handmaid of equity—and one of the first lawyers of the age, placed at the fountain head of justice, and freed by the gathered effulgence of truth, from the sophisms of his character and his class, casts off his prejudices and restores to liberty, her resting place on earth.
2d. We have a deplorable instance of the corruptions of legal practice. Mr. Dunning, who supported tyranny in the case of Somerset, had previously been one of the most bright and efficient defenders of liberty. He was the chief advocate in the case of Thomas Lewis, in 1771, and then triumphantly declared, that no man can be legally detained as a slave in England. Granville Sharp's observations upon this tergiversation, are worthy of record, and should ring like warning thunder upon every lawyer's heart. "This is an abominable and insufferable practice in lawyers, to undertake causes diametrically opposite to their own declared opinions of law and justice."
3d. We are encouraged in assailing wickedness, however inveterate it may have grown—however fearful the power which supports it—however great the influence and the talent and the learning which may be arrayed in its defence! In the case before us, perversion of law, supported by the practice of almost half a century, had become as law itself. The abuse was admitted into all the courts, and was sustained by almost every lawyer. The fountains of justice were corrupted; and the tyrant doctrine of right being confined to a particular class, while another class was mercilessly bereaved of every right, lorded it over the land. Britain, in boasting of liberty, was a hypocrite; for her liberty was licentiousness; the dreadful licentiousness practiced by the learned and rich, of plundering and oppressing without remorse, the ignorant and the poor. In the midst of this wickedness, a man with a single eye to God, arose! What was darkness through sophistry, to the highest intellects and to the deepest scholarship of the mighty minds around him, to him was light. No selfishness—no partiality—no prejudice—no pride—no fear or idolatry of man, clouded the light of eternal equity and love, which burnt in his ​bosom. He moved right on, as his Saviour led him; and others, won by the loveliness of truth shining in him, came up with him to the advocacy of righteousness. Satan raged—then trembled—then fell—and the fresh ocean air of Britain again became too pure for a slave to breathe in. It may here be observed, that Stewart, in prosecuting his tyrant claim against Somerset, was supported by the mighty influence and wealth of the West Indian faction.
4th. We are taught the liability to the basest influences of the finest minds—and the consequent danger of resting upon human opinion.
In the beginning 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 even 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 freeman; 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; thus exhibiting man's dreadful liability to corrupt influence, and the greatness of the debt of gratitude which we owe to God, for raising up in the moment of emergency, such a vindicator of his truth as Granville Sharp.
Thus were the British Isles delivered from slavery. Thus became they cities of refuge for the slave! Let him but land there, and miserable as the roof might be under which he slept, he slept in safety! No more was he liable to be hunted through the streets as a beast of prey! He walked secure by the side of the stately ship, and feared no
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse