Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-04-22
To the Friends of American Liberty:


OF THE COURT OF KINGS BENCH
To the Friends of American Liberty.
| promised to consider, in this Letter, the
bearings Of Lord Mansfeld's decision against
the Legality Of Slavery in England, upon the
Legal Tenure Of Slavery in the Colonies OF
England.
Two distinct yet closely connected topics
present themselves here. The first has respect
to the legal identity of the tenure of slave
property in England and in her Colonies and
the second, to the jurisdiction Of the English
courts over colonial jurisprudence
The first question, think, is pretty easily
settled, in the light Of the historical facts that
have boen presented. The Slavery Of the Colo
MES originated in tho African slave trade. So
did the Slavery Of the mother country The
Slavery OF the Colonies existed under the jnris-
diction of English common law; 80 did that of
the mother country. No adequate or valid
Legislation las has been shown) amounting to a
municipal lawn establishing Slavery, had
taken place in the Colonies, and there had
been no such legislation in England.
So Identical, indeed, was the Slavery of the
mother country with that Of the Colonies that
the slaves Of the former were, for the most
part, introduced from the latter, and were ac-
stance. Had they not been held as slaves in
the Colonies, they would not have been claimed
and held as slaves in England. The converse
would then seem to hold good, viz: If illegally
held in England, under tenure derived from
the Colonies, then the tenure under which they
were held in the Colonies must have been de-
fcctive and invalid.
Tho only conceivable objection seems to be
this. II might be said that, though legally held
in the Colonies they became free on their arri-
val in England, under English common law, or
natural law, having passed ont from under the
jurisdiction of municipal law in the Colo
mics. This objection comedies the soundness Of
our first position, viz: that Slavery can exist
only by municipal law and not under English
common law or natural law. 1t renders it in
cnmbent on the colonial stakeholder to produce
the positive municipal" colonial law, which,
as we have seen, does not exist, or has not been
found If natural law or English common law
were incompatible with the legality of Slavery
in England, then they were incompatible with
the legality of Slavery in the Colonies; so that
a judicial decision, IN the Colonies, correspond
ing in principle with the decision of Lord
Mansfield in England, would have been proper,
and, if carried into effect, it would have termi.
mated Slavery in the Colonies.
But second topic of inquiry remains. Did
the judicial decision of Lord Mansfield bind
the Colonies, or did it bind only the mother
country?
IF it bound only the mother country there
must have been some cause or reason aphy it
did not extend to the CoIonies--to all the do:
minions of Great Britain. What could that
cause or reason be
IL could not be because the Colonies were
independent Of the mother country, for they
were not so, and did not claim to be. 1t could
not be because the Colonies were not under the
jurisdiction of English common law for they
acre under its jurisdiction. 1t could not be
because the Colonies or their Legislatures were
authorized or were competent to enact laws
contrary to English common law, for this was
not the case. Lord Mansfield decided that
the condition of Slavery was not compatible
with English common law. His decision there
fore was equivalent to q decision that Slavery
in the Colonies, under English common law,
was not legal. The common law would have
been a complete nullity in the Colonies, if
decision against the legality Of Slavery by the
Court Of Kings Bench in England, on the
ground of it's incompatibilty with the common
law, did not determine and declare that Sla-
very in the Colonies was illegal. And il the
decision was not binding upon the Colonies,
then the common law was not binding upon
them which, we know, was contrary to the
fact But this absurdity must be received as
q trustworthy exposition of law, or else it must
be admitted that tho decision Of Lord Mans
field was decision against the legality Of Sla-
very in the Colonies.
And we know that this was the understand
ing at the time, in England, among those who
were in sympathy with the decision. Witness
the following:
Immediately after the trial. H. e. Of the
Somerset case,) Mr. Sharp felt it his duty to
write to Lord North, then principal Minister
of State, parning him, in the most earnest
manner, to abolish, immediately both the slave
trade and the Slavery of the human species, in
all the British dominions rs utterly irreconci
liable with the Briti.h Constitution and the es-
tabished religion Of the lands
Let il be noticed that this was not petition
to Parliament for the abolition Of Colonial
Slavery, but demand on the Prime Minister
for its summary executive suppression, under
the decision OF Lord Mansfield. Let it be no
ticed, further that the approving record Of this,
by THOMAS CLARKsoN, identifies his name with
that Of GRANVILLE SHARP, in the expression Of
the sentiment.
Ii is true that the measure was not carried
out land, by the by, there were one or two
legal decisions against Slavery in Massachu-
sets before tho measure was carried out, in its
suppresionf--a there had been one similar
decision in England before that Of Lord Mans
field. in the early part OF Queen Elizabeth's
reign.t Laws are not always enforced The
slaves in the Colonies had no Granville Sharp,
to bring their causes into court Perhaps the
difficulties resulting in the American Revolu-
ton prevented the enforcement Of the decision
in the Colonies. The legal fact, and the legal
effects OF it, nevertheless, remained.
The same view was revived, and dissemina-
ted in England, preliminary TO the abolition Of
British colonial Slavery in the West Indies
and as principal means of urging onward
that measure. Thomas Clarkson, in his old
age, wrote pamphlet in which he maintained
that there was not and neUcr had been, any
LEGAL Slavery in the Colonies "The plant
ers," said he, "can neither prove moral nor
n legal right TO their Slaves The prevalence
or th;S oont;roart IN Encland xaa identified