Bautar a cikin doka ta al'ada

Bautar da doka ta bai daya a daular Biritaniya ta bunkasa sannu a hankali tsawon shekaru aru-aru, kuma tana da hukunce-hukuncen da ba su dace ba da kuma dalilai daban-daban na maganin bautar da fataucin bayi da hakkokin bayi da masu mallakar bayi . Ba kamar a cikin yankunanta ba, a cikin tsibirin gida na Biritaniya, har zuwa 1807, sai dai dokokin gudanarwa da harajin cinikin bayi na duniya, kusan babu wani sa hannun majalisa dangane da bayi a matsayin dukiya, kuma bisa ga doka ta gama gari tana da wani abu na "hannu mai 'yanci" don haɓakawa, wanda "hannun gurguzu na majalisar zaɓaɓɓen majalisa" ba shi da tushe.   Ƙoƙari biyu na ƙaddamar da lambar bawa ta hanyar majalisar kanta duka biyun sun kasa, ɗaya a cikin 1660s da ɗayan a cikin 1674. 

Wasu malaman sun ce ba a yarda da bautar a matsayin halal ba,  sau da yawa bisa la'akari da maganganun da aka danganta ga Lord Mansfield, cewa "iskar Ingila yana da tsarki ga kowane bawa ya shaka".  Duk da haka matsayi na gaskiya na shari'a ya kasance mai rikitarwa da jayayya. A ƙarni na 17 da 18, an tsare wasu bayi na Afirka a fili, an saya, ana sayar da su, da kuma neman su lokacin da suke tserewa cikin Biritaniya.  

 Dokar gama gari ta farko 
Akwai wata doka ta Irish a cikin 1171 "cewa duk bayin Ingila a duk ƙasar Ireland, a 'yantar da su nan da nan kuma a mai da su zuwa ƴancinsu na baya". Haka kuma majiyar ta nuna cewa an soke bautar da ake yi a Ingila ta wata yarjejeniya ta ' yantar da jama'a a shekara ta  Tabbas villeinage ya ci gaba a Ingila, yana raguwa a hankali, har sai villein na ƙarshe ya mutu a farkon karni na 17. 

A cikin shari'o'in dokokin gama gari daga baya, babu ɗaya daga cikin hukunce-hukuncen da aka ambata ko shela da aka ambata ko kuma aka kira su a matsayin doka mai ɗaurewa dangane da matsayin bayi gabaɗaya.

 Maganar Cartwright 
A cikin 1569, an ga wani mutum, Cartwright, yana dukan wani, wanda a cikin doka zai zama baturi, sai dai idan za a iya hawa kariya. Cartwright ya yarda cewa mutumin bawa ne da ya zo da shi Ingila daga Rasha, don haka irin wannan azabtarwa bai sabawa doka ba. John Rushworth ya ba da rahoto a cikin taƙaicensa na 1680 na shari’ar John Lilburne na shekara ta 1649. Ya rubuta: “Blala ya kasance mai raɗaɗi da kunya, Tuta don bayi. Kuma lalle ne, haƙĩƙa, an yi niyya sau da yawa, ko da a cikin Tauraro, cewa, ba za a yi wa wani mai laifi bulala ba, kuma bulala ta yi tsanani.  An bayar da rahoton cewa kotun ta yanke hukuncin cewa dole ne a saki mutumin, kuma ana yawan cewa kotun ta ce "England ta kasance iska mai tsabta don bawa ya shaka." 

Babu tabbas ko tasirin shari'ar shine a zahiri sanya bauta a Ingila ba bisa ka'ida ba, ko kuma gabaɗaya don sanya iyaka kan azabtar da bayi. A cikin babu ɗayan shari'o'in gama gari da kafin shari'ar Somersett da aka ambata shari'ar Cartwright a matsayin ikon da aka ba da shawarar cewa bautar haramun ne. waɗannan rikice-rikicen sun shafi rikice-rikicen da ke tsakanin masu sayar da bayi (wanda aka sani shine Shanley v Harvey, wanda aka gani a ƙasa), wanda zai kasance rashin hikima a kasuwanci don roƙon cewa bautar haramun ne. 

An yi la'akari da cewa, saboda ya kasance daga Rasha, bawan Cartwright fari ne, kuma mai yiwuwa Kirista ne, ko da yake wannan ba a rubuta ba. 

 Kasuwancin bayi na Afirka da dokar gama gari 
Duk da haka, adawa ta farko na kotunan Ingila game da matsayin bautar ya fara canzawa tare da haɓaka mahimmancin cinikin bayi na Afirka . An fara zirga-zirga mai yawa a cikin bayi baƙar fata daga Afirka a cikin ƙarni na 17, da farko don samar da aiki don noman sukari da sigari a cikin ƙasashen Burtaniya da ke mulkin mallaka.  A cikin Caribbean, Barbados ya zama mulkin mallaka na Ingilishi a 1624 da Jamaica a 1655. Waɗannan da sauran yankunan Caribbean sun zama cibiyar arziki da kuma mayar da hankali ga cinikin bayi ga daular Ingila mai girma.  A cikin 1660, abin da ya zama Kamfanin Royal African, Sarki Charles II ya yi hayarsa tare da cin gashin kansa a cikin kasuwancin.  Kamfanin Royal African, wanda James, Duke na York, ɗan'uwan sarki ke mulkin, shine tsakiyar cinikin bayi na Ingila, kuma rikice-rikicen kasuwanci game da bautar ba da daɗewa ba ya gabatar da kotunan Ingila tare da sababbin tambayoyin shari'a. A karkashin lex mercatoria bayi an wani lokaci ana bi da su azaman chattels, tare da kaɗan idan akwai haƙƙoƙi, amma kotunan Ingilishi ba koyaushe suna yarda da al'adar ciniki a matsayin doka ba, har ma a cikin dokar kasuwancin Ingilishi, an yi jayayya da batun. Tambayar ta taso ne a kotunan Ingila saboda ana iya aiwatar da ayyukan sirri a Ingila ko da dalilin daukar matakin ya taso a kasashen waje. A 1698, wani aiki na majalisar  ya buɗe cinikin bayi ga duk batutuwan Ingilishi.  A cikin karni na 18, masu mallaka a Ingila za su tallata tallace-tallacen bayi na Afirka da kuma dawowar bayin da suka gudu. 

 Butts v. Penny da ayyana mutane a matsayin dukiya 
A cikin 1677, bayan Kamfanin Royal African ya yi fatara, babban kotun King's Bench ya shiga tsakani don canza dalilan shari'a na bautar daga dokar feudal zuwa dokar dukiya. A shekara ta 1677 a Butts v. Penny kotuna sun yanke hukuncin cewa wani mataki na trover (wani nau'in cin zarafi) zai yi ƙarya ga baƙar fata, kamar dai su 'yan iska ne. Ma'anar ita ce kafirai ba za su iya zama masu mulki ba saboda ba za su iya yin rantsuwa da mubaya'a don tabbatar da su ba (kamar yadda aka ƙaddara a cikin Calvin's Case a 1608). A matsayin baƙi, ana iya ɗaukar su a matsayin "kaya" maimakon mutane don dalilai na kasuwanci. Babban Alkali Holt ya ki amincewa da irin wannan matsayi ga mutane a Harvey v. Chamberlain a shekara ta 1696, sannan kuma ya musanta yiwuwar kawo zato (wani nau'in cin zarafi) kan siyar da bakar fata a Ingila: "da zaran negro ya zo Ingila yana da 'yanci; mutum na iya zama villein a Ingila, amma ba bawa ba." An yi zargin cewa ya yi tsokaci ne a gefe guda a wani yanayi cewa wanda ake zaton mai shi zai iya gyara furucinsa don bayyana cewa an ƙirƙiri wata takarda don siyarwa a masarautar masarautar Virginia, inda dokar mulkin mallaka ta amince da bautar, amma irin wannan iƙirari ya sabawa babban abin da aka gano a cikin lamarin. A cikin 1706 Babban Mai Shari'a Holt ya ki amincewa da wani mataki na trover dangane da bawa, yana mai cewa babu wani mutum da zai iya samun dukiya a cikin wani, amma ya yi imanin cewa za a iya samun wani mataki na daban.

Daga karshe hukunce-hukuncen kotun Holt ba su da wani tasiri na dogon lokaci. An saya da sayar da bayi a kai a kai a kasuwannin Liverpool da London, kuma ayyuka kan kwangila game da bayi sun kasance na kowa a cikin karni na 18 ba tare da wata shawara mai mahimmanci ba cewa sun kasance maras kyau ga doka, ko da yake matsayin York-Talbot, wanda aka tattauna a kasa, mai yiwuwa ya taimaka wajen haifar da kwanciyar hankali na doka. A cikin 1700 babu yawa na aikin bauta a Ingila kamar yadda yake a cikin mazauna. Ma'aikatan Afirka sun kasance gama gari a matsayin alamomin matsayi, amma yadda ake kula da su bai yi kama da na bayi na shuka ba a cikin ƴan mulkin mallaka. Matsalolin shari’a da suka fi taso a Ingila su ne idan bawa ya tsere ta hanyar wuce gona da iri, ko kuma idan mai bawa daga yankunan da ke mulkin mallaka ya kawo bawa kuma yana tsammanin ya ci gaba da yin amfani da ikonsa don hana bawa barin hidimarsa. An kawo yawan adadin bayi a Ingila a cikin karni na 18,  kuma wannan na iya taimakawa wajen bayyana fahimtar matsalolin da aka gabatar ta hanyar kasancewar bautar. Ban da la'akarin ɗabi'a, an sami sabani a fili tsakanin ayyana dukiya a cikin bayi da kuma wani madadin al'adar 'yanci na Ingilishi wanda habeas corpus ke kariya. Idan kotuna sun yarda da kadarorin da aka ɗauka gabaɗaya suna wanzuwa a cikin bayi a cikin mulkin mallaka, yaya za a bi da irin waɗannan haƙƙoƙin mallaka idan daga baya aka kawo bawa Ingila?

Ra'ayin bautar Yorke–Talbot  
Sai dai, hukuncin kotun Holt a bayan Juyin Juya Halin Glorious Revolution ya jawo damuwa game da matsayin bawa a doka, har wasu masu bauta suka nemi a fayyace dokar. A shekara ta 1729 wasu masu bauta daban-daban sun samu ra'ayin bautar Yorke–Talbot da manyan lauyoyin gwamnati suka bayar a ɗaya daga cikin Inns of Court.  

Lauyoyin gwamnati sun bayyana ra'ayi cewa a ƙarƙashin dokar Ingila (i) matsayin bawa ba ya canzawa idan ya zo Ingila, (ii) za a iya tilasta wa bawa komawa mulkin mallaka daga Ingila, kuma (iii) baftisma ba za ta 'yantar da bawa ba. Wannan ra'ayi bai kawo wata hujja ba, kuma bai bayyana hujjar shari'a ba, amma an buga shi sosai kuma aka dogara da shi.  

Ɗaya daga cikin marubutan ra'ayin, Lord Hardwicke (ko da yake a lokacin ana kiransa Philip Yorke), daga baya ya tabbatar da ra'ayoyin da aka bayyana a cikin ra'ayin (ko da ba a ambace shi kai tsaye ba) yayin da yake zaman kotu a Pearne v Lisle (1749) Amb 75, 27 ER 47. Shari'ar ta shafi hakkin mallakar bayi goma sha huɗu da suke a Antigua, kuma ta haɗa da muhimman batutuwa na dokar mulkin mallaka. Amma Lord Hardwicke ya yanke hukunci cewa bauta ba ta saba wa dokar Ingila ba, kuma saboda dokar Ingila ta shafi Antigua a wancan lokaci, bauta ba ta sabawa doka a Antigua ba.  

A wannan lokaci, shari'o'in da kotunan Ingila suka amince da mallakar bayi sun fito ne daga rikice-rikicen kasuwanci kawai, kuma ba su kafa wata 'yanci da za a iya aiwatarwa a kan bayi ba idan bawan yana cikin ikon kotu. Kamar yadda aka yi da bayi a ƙarni da suka gabata, kwatancen da ake yi da kayan alatu (a tsakanin masu ikirarin mallaka) bai amsa tambayar jagora ba ko bayi za su iya tabbatar da 'yancinsu ta hanyar shigar da ƙara a kotu (a tsakanin bawa da mai shi). Rubutun de homine replegiando ya tsufa, don haka tambayar da aka saba yi a ƙarni na goma sha takwas ita ce ko habeas corpus na iya 'yantar da bayi daga kamewa. Sir William Blackstone ba shi da shakka cewa "ruhin 'yanci ya tsiro sosai a cikin tsarin mulkinmu" har cewa bawa, da zarar ya taka ƙasar Ingila, ya zama 'yanci.Bl. Comm., vol I, shafi na 123  

Wasu manyan lauyoyi, kamar Lord Hardwicke da Lord Mansfield, sun ji cewa ya fi dacewa a amince da bauta, sannan a kafa doka a kan kasuwancin bayi maimakon a janye daga cikinsa, saboda ƙasashen da ba su da wayewa za su amfana da kawar da bauta kuma bayi za su sha wahala. Hujjar "kafirai" don ci gaba da daukar bayi na Afirka a matsayin kayan alatu an daina amfani da shi a tsakiyar ƙarni na 18, saboda a wancan lokacin an riga an yi wa bayi da dama baftisma cikin Kiristanci ba tare da samun 'yanci de facto ba; kuma yanzu ana neman hujjojin shari'a don mallakar bayi ta hanyar kwatanta da tsohuwar dokar bayi na baya.

Shanley v Harvey

A cikin Shanley v Harvey (1763) 2 Eden 126, Shanley ya shigar da ƙara a matsayin mai kula da dukiyar 'yar'uwarsa da ta rasu.

Shanley ya kawo Harvey a matsayin bawan yaro zuwa Ingila shekaru 12 da suka gabata kuma ya ba da shi ga 'yar'uwarsa. Ta yi masa baftisma kuma ta canza masa suna. Ta yi rashin lafiya sosai kuma kusan awa ɗaya kafin rasuwarta, ta ba Harvey kuɗi kimanin fam £800 (adadi mai yawa a wancan lokacin), ta umarce shi da ya biya bashin mai nama kuma ya yi amfani da kuɗin yadda ya dace. Bayan rasuwarta, Shanley ya shigar da ƙara kan Harvey don ya karɓi kuɗin.

Lord Henley, mai kula da hatimin ƙasar, ya yi watsi da ƙarar tare da sanya Shanley ya biya kuɗin shari'a. A hukuncinsa ya bayyana cewa da zarar mutum ya taka ƙasar Ingila, ya zama 'yanci, kuma cewa "bako" zai iya shigar da ƙara kan ubangidansa don zalunci, tare da neman habeas corpus idan aka tsare shi. Duk da haka, waɗannan bayanan ba su da muhimmanci ga hukuncin shari'ar, kuma a doka ana kiran su kawai obiter dictum kuma ba su da ɗaure kotuna na gaba.

R v Stapylton
Ɗaya daga cikin ƙarancin rikice-rikicen da ba na kasuwanci ba game da bauta ya taso a cikin R v Stapylton (1771, ba a buga ba) inda Lord Mansfield ya zauna. An tuhumi Stapylton bayan ya yi ƙoƙarin korar Thomas Lewis, bawan da yake ikirarin na shi ne, da karfi. Tsaron Stapylton ya ta'allaka ne akan cewa saboda Lewis bawansa ne, aikinsa na halal ne.

Lord Mansfield ya samu damar amfani da wata hanya ta shari'a a lokacin a cikin shari'o'in laifuka da ake kira Alƙalan Goma Sha Biyu don yanke hukunci kan batutuwan doka (wanda ba na alƙalai bane) a cikin lamuran laifi. Duk da haka, ya guje wa yin hakan, kuma ya yi ƙoƙarin (amma bai yi nasara ba) don ya shawo kan ɓangarorin su guji amfani da halaccin bauta a matsayin gindin tsaro.

A ƙarshe Mansfield ya umarci alƙalai cewa su ɗauka cewa Lewis mutum ne mai 'yanci, sai dai idan Stapylton ya iya tabbatar da akasin haka. Haka kuma ya umarci alƙalai cewa sai dai idan sun gano cewa Stapylton shi ne halastaccen mai Lewis "za ku same shi da laifi". An ba Lewis damar bayar da shaida. Alƙalai suka same shi da laifi. Duk da haka, a yayin takaitawa, Lord Mansfield ya yi hattara wajen cewa "ko suna da irin wannan dukiya a Ingila bai taɓa samun hukunci a hukumance ba."

 Shari'ar James Somersett 

Tambayar hakkin bawa da maigidan da ake zargi da shi (ba kamar hakkin ’yan kasuwa tsakaninsu ba) ta kai gaban Lord Mansfield da kotun King's Bench a shekarar 1771. An fitar da wata takardar habeas corpus domin a saki James Somersett, wani bakar fata da aka daure da sarƙa a cikin jirgi da ya iso daga Virginia zuwa kogin Thames, yana kan hanyarsa zuwa Jamaica, kuma an bayyana cewa bawa ne bisa doka ta jihar Virginia. Lord Mansfield bai so ya fuskanci muhimmin batu na ko bautar doka ce ko a'a ba, kuma ya matsa wa ɓangarorin da su sasanta; amma ’yan kasuwar West India suka ɗauki shari’ar, suna son su san ko bayi zasu zama wata amintacciyar jari, da kuma masu adawa da bauta irin su Granville Sharp, wanda hakan ya sa shari’ar ta zama sananniya.

Yayin da yake yanke hukunci, Lord Mansfield ya bayyana cewa bauta abu ne mai banƙyama sosai har sai idan doka (wato dokar da aka rubuta) ta bayyana hakan, kuma babu irin wannan doka a dokar Ingila. Duk da haka, kamar yadda ya bayyana daga baya, ya yanke hukunci ne kawai kan cewa maigida ba zai iya tilasta fitar da bawan da karfi ba (duba R v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton a ƙasa). Ya umurta da cewa "bakon dole ne a saki", yana ba Stewart 'yanci.

Hukuncin ya haifar da muhimman tasiri. A cikin littafinsa kan Sarki George III, Andrew Roberts ya bayyana cewa hakan ya ƙara wata hujja ga ‘yan mulkin mallaka na Amurka don ƙin mulkin Birtaniya, musamman na kudancin Amurka, wadanda da alama da farko za su goyi bayan zaman tare da Birtaniya. Yayin da yake amsa kalubalantar da lauya na Somersett ya kawo na cewa riba mai yawa tana dogara da bautar, Lord Mansfield ya ce, "fiat justitia, ruat cælum, a yi adalci ko menene sakamakon."

 R v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton 

Lord Mansfield ya yi tsokaci a kan hukuncinsa a cikin shari’ar Somersett a cikin R v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton (1785)R v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton (1785) 99 ER 891.. Rahoton hukuma ya nuna cewa Lord Mansfield ya bayyana ra’ayinsa yayin tattaunawar lauya cewa hukuncinsa a shari’ar Somersett ya yanke cewa ba a yarda a tilasta fitar da bawa daga Ingila ba da karfi: "Hukuncin bai wuce cewa maigida ba zai iya tilasta masa fita daga masarautar ba." A cikin Thames Ditton wata bakar mace mai suna Charlotte Howe aka kawo zuwa Ingila a matsayin bawa daga wani Kyaftin Howe. Bayan mutuwar Kyaftin Howe, Charlotte ta nemi taimako daga gundumar Thames Ditton. Lord Mansfield ya ce shari’ar Somersett ta yanke ne kawai cewa maigida ba zai iya tilasta fitar da bawa daga Ingila ba, kamar yadda a da maigida ba zai iya tilasta fitar da ɗan-ƙauye ba. Ya yanke cewa Charlotte ba ta da damar samun taimako bisa dokokin talakawa na Ingila saboda taimakon yana dogara ne da "hayar aiki", kuma wannan bai shafi bayi ba.

 Shari’ar Joseph Knight 

A shekara ta 1777 bayan hukuncin Mansfield a Ingila, wani bawa da ke zaune a Scotland, Joseph Knight, ya nemi 'yanci daga aikin John Wedderburn na Ballendean, inda ya bayyana cewa saukarsa a ƙasar Scotland ya 'yantar da shi daga bautar dindindin, tunda ba a san bauta a matsayin doka a Scotland ba (ba a san ko hakan ya dogara da hukuncin Mansfield ba). Shekaru da dama da suka gabata, Knight ya kasance sayayyen bawa daga Wedderburn a Jamaica daga wani mai sayar da bayi, ko da yake matsayinsa a lokacin shari’ar yana da sabani (Knight ya bayyana cewa Wedderburn na son komawa da shi Jamaica don ya sayar da shi a matsayin bawa, wanda Wedderburn ya ƙaryata).

Shari’ar ta haifar da sabani a cikin kotuna domin Wedderburn ya nace cewa bautar dindindin da bauta ba iri ɗaya bane. Ya ce bisa dokar Scotland, Knight, ko da yake ba a ɗaukarsa a matsayin bawa, har yanzu yana da alhakin yin hidima har abada kamar yadda ake yi da sabis na kwangila ko koyon sana'a. Kotun Masu Shari’a a Perth ta yanke hukunci da farko a goyon bayan Wedderburn. Amma lokacin da Knight ya ɗaukaka ƙara zuwa ga Mataimakin Sheriff, an soke hukuncin farko. Wedderburn ya sake ɗaukaka ƙara zuwa kotun Lords of Council and Session. Kotun ta yi watsi da ƙarar Wedderburn, ta yanke cewa:

Shaidu da aka gabatar daga bangarorin biyu a cikin wannan shari’a suna nan a cikin National Archives of Scotland (nass: CS235/K/2/2). Henry Dundas, wanda shi ne Lord Advocate a wancan lokacin, ya tsaya wa Joseph Knight a kotu.
Kisan Zong


A ƙarshen watan Nuwamba ko farkon watan Disamba na shekarar 1781, shugaban jirgin ruwan Ingila na bayi mai suna Zong, da ma'aikatansa, sun jefa wasu bayi ‘yan Afirka cikin teku kusa da tsibirin Hispaniola, domin ceton rayukan sauran bayi saboda ƙarancin abinci. Masu jirgin sun nemi biyan diyya daga inshora, suna cewa jefar da kayan jirgi (wato bayi) cikin teku asara ce da za a iya biya, ko da kuwa hakan kisan gilla ne. A zagayen farko na shari'a, alƙalai sun yanke hukunci da cewa masu jirgin sun cancanci diyya. A shari’a ta gaba da aka nemi a soke wannan hukuncin, Lord Mansfield ya bayyana cewa "alkalan farko ba su yi wata shakka ba (ko da yake abin yana da ban tsoro sosai) cewa shari’ar bayi iri ɗaya ce da ace dawakai ne aka jefa cikin ruwa".

Wannan hukuncin na farko an soke shi, kuma aka umarci sabon shari'a. Duk da haka, a cikin duka shari’o’in biyu, kotu ta amince da cewa kashe bayi ba laifi bane da zai hana karɓar diyya daga inshora, ko da kuwa aikin doka ba ne. A report of one of the appeals is available: Gregson v Gilbert (1783) 3 Doug KB 232 Bayan haka, dokokin Slave Trade Act 1788 sun haramta yin inshora akan irin wannan asarar bayi.

R v Hodge

A shekarar 1811, Arthur Hodge ya zama mutumin farko (kuma shi kaɗai) ɗan Birtaniya da aka taɓa shari’a da shi bisa zargin kisan bawa. A cikin kariyarsa, Hodge ya yi iƙirarin cewa "Bako dukiya ne, don haka ba wani babban laifi bane idan maigidansa ya kashe shi, fiye da yadda zai kashe kare." Amma kotu ba ta karɓi wannan hujjar ba, kuma ta yi watsi da ita kai tsaye.

Lauyan gwamnati ya kuma yi magana a kan dokar Amelioration Act 1798 da Majalisar dokokin tsibiran Leeward ta zartar, wadda ta shafi tsibiran British Virgin Islands. Wannan doka ta tanadi hukunci ga masu bayi da ke azabtar da bayi da hukunci mara adalci, amma hakan na iya haifar da tara kawai, ba tare da bayyana a fili cewa za a iya gurfanar da mai bawa da laifi kamar kisa ko wani laifi na cin zarafin mutum ba.

An yi shari’ar ne bisa dokar gama gari ta Ingila a cikin British Virgin Islands. Amma babu batun ɗaukaka ƙara (an kashe Hodge bayan kwana takwas da yanke hukunci). Alƙalan (da yawancinsu masu bayi ne) sun roƙi gafara, amma kotu ta yanke masa hukuncin kisa, don haka masana ba sa ɗaukar umarnin alkalin shari’a a matsayin tabbacin doka.

Forbes v Cochrane

Tabbatar da hukuncin Mansfield, cewa sai doka (dokar da aka rubuta) ce za ta iya halasta bauta, ta bayyana a cikin hukuncin Mr. Justice Best a cikin shari’ar Forbes v CochraneForbes v Cochrane (1824) 3 Dow & Ry KB 679 at 742, 2 B & C 448 at 463, 107 ER 450 at 456, 2 State Trials NS 147 a shekarar 1824. Ya ce, "Babu wata doka da ta amince da bauta da ke aiki a wannan ɓangaren da muke da alhakin yin shari'a yanzu."The Debates in Parliament, Session 1833 - on the Resolutions and Bill for the Abolition of Slavery in the British Colonies: With a Copy of the Act of Parliament (Google eBook), Great Britain Parliament, 1834, p. 325

Ya bayyana shari’ar Somerset a matsayin wanda ke ba bawa damar samun 'yanci idan ya isa Ingila, kuma duk wanda ya yi ƙoƙarin mayar da shi matsayin bawa za a ɗaukesa da laifi na katsalandan.(1824) 2 Barnewall and Cresswell, p. 448. Amma ba duka rahotanni na wannan shari’a ba ne suka yi daidai da wannan fassara.

Dokokin da suka biyo baya  
A ƙarshe, dokar gama gari ba ta ci gaba ba. Amma hukuncin 1772 a shari'ar James Somersett an fassara shi da yawa a matsayin mai hana bautarwa doka. Duk da cewa wasu masana sun ƙi amincewa da hakan, ra'ayin ya karu ne saboda motsi na masu fafutukar kawar da bautarwa, ko da ba daidai yake da ainihin hukuncin ba. Bautarwa ba ta ƙare ta hanyar ra'ayin jama'a kamar yadda aka yi da villeinage, saboda bukatun kasuwanci da ke da daraja. Dokar Kasuwancin Bayi ta 1788 (28 Geo. 3. c. 54) an kafa ta ne don rage wahalar da bayi ke fuskanta a yayin jigilar su, bayan abin da ya faru a kisan gillar Zong. Wannan doka ta samu sabuntawa sau da yawa kafin a tabbatar da ita a 1799.  

A 1792, Majalisar Wakilan Burtaniya ta kada kuri'a don kawar da bautarwa a hankali, sannan a cikin 1807 aka hana kasuwancin bayi na Afirka ta hanyar Dokar Kasuwancin Bayi ta 1807 (47 Geo. 3 Sess. 1. c. 36). Laifukan da doka ta ƙirƙira sun zama manyan laifuka a 1811, don hana kasuwanci da bayi ba bisa ka'ida ba. Bayi da aka fitar daga Afirka ba bisa ka'ida ba an kwace su ga sarki ne, don kawar da dukiyar da ke kansu kawai. Wannan ya hana 'yan kasuwa na Burtaniya fitar da mutane daga Afirka, amma bai canza matsayin bayi da suka wanzu ba, kuma kotuna sun ci gaba da gane bautarwa a yankunan mulkin mallaka.  

Masu fafutukar kawar da bautarwa sun mai da hankalinsu ga 'yantar da bayi na yankin West Indies. A shari'a, hakan ya kasance da wahala, saboda dole ne a kwace dukiyar mutane; amma an yi hakan a ƙarshe ta hanyar Dokar Kawar da Bautarwa ta 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 73) da kuɗi £20 miliyan daga asusun gwamnati don siyan bayi daga masu su kuma a 'yantar da su. Bayin da aka 'yantar ba su sami diyya ba saboda wahalar da suka sha.  


Daga 1 ga Agusta 1834, duk bayi a cikin yankunan mulkin mallakar Burtaniya an “'yantar da su gaba ɗaya kuma har abada.”  

A cikin yankunan mulkin mallaka na Burtaniya, an ɗauka cewa sai da doka mai ƙarfi ake bukata don sanya bautarwa ta zama doka, kuma yankuna da dama na sarauta sun kafa dokoki don wannan.  

 Manazarta 

 Mahaɗa 
 Slavery in England and the law
M. Kaufmann, 'English Common Law, Slavery and', Encyclopaedia of Blacks in European History and Culture (2008),Vol. I, pp. 200-203)