But as it may perhaps be to the purpose, my Lord, to try the force and effect of these acts of trade referred to, I will, with your Lordship's indulgence, ftate a cafe or two, whereby their operation in this country might be felt and perceived.

Suppofe, my Lord, that a fleet of merchant ships belonging to the African company, containing twenty thousand Negroes on board (more or lefs, it is of no matter), bound from Africa to America, fhould, by ftrange,

im

ftatutes is, that they compliedly authorize the flavery of Negroes in America; and it would be a ftrange thing to fay, that permitting flavery there, includes a permiffion of flavery here. By an unhappy concurrence of circumstances, the flavery of Negroes is thought to have become neceffary in America; and therefore in* America our Legislature has permitted the flavery of Negroes. But the flavery of Negroes is unneceffary in England, and therefore the Legislature has not extended the permiffion of it to England; and not having done fo, how can this Court be warranted to make fuch an extenfion?" Now this is the very affertion without proof that I have complained of above, and have there' fully anfwered: but, in truth, the best answer it can receive, is its own futility. Why did not Mr. Hargrave, instead of his ipfe dixit, produce authorities to fet

ftrange, contrary, and adverfe winds, be driven and wrecked upon the coast of England; that the fhips were loft and destroyed, but that the Negroes had been landed in fafety on this fhore of freedom: would the African company, my Lord, be justified' and entitled to re-fhip thefe Negroes in other veffels, to the end that they might be conveyed to their deftined ports in America? Or, would the pure air of this country, as has been infifted on, set them, with caps of liberty on their heads, free and at

afide this objection? He is on other occafions not sparing of proofs and citations. But what is his ipfe dixit?

It is this:

The Legislature has permitted the flavery of Negroes in America:

But the flavery of Negroes is unneceffary in England: Ergo, the Legiflature has not extended the permiffion of it to England. ·

This is his mode of reasoning, and these are his very words, which, when examined fyllogiftically, fhew, if I have not forgotten my Logic, that they are as little conformable to rule, as to matter of fact. But, the fact is, Mr. Hargrave has found this objection a stumbling block in his way, and therefore, nimbly leaping over it himfelf, has left it to trip up the heals of his followers

large;

large; thereby robbing, for fo I must call it, these merchants of their property to the amount of one million of money, at the allowance, and on the moderate computation, of fifty pounds price for each individual Negroe? In this kingdom of commerce, my Lord, where the rights of merchants are fo well diftinguifhed, and the laws of trade are fo minutely known, I fhould prefume that the cafe would not admit of a queftion. Of what ufe would the charter of this company be to them, if the laws protective of that charter should be found inadequate and ineffectual to the maintenance and fecurity of their property?" But again it has been obferved, my Lord, that by the ftatute of the 5th of George III. ch. xliv. a number of canoemen, and other Negroes, in Africa, were vefted in the Crown. Now, by canoe-men, I fuppofe, my Lord, are meant, African failors. Suppose then, that one hundred,' for example, of these failors fhould, by

fome:

some contrivance or other, find their way into England; would the King, my Lord, have authority to remand them to their place of duty? or, would writs of Habeas Corpus, in despite of this act of parliament, protect them here; thereby determining the right of the Crown in them? The cafe, my Lord, fpeaks and determines for itself. Wherein then, my Lord, differs the cafe of Mr. Steuart from these?

Their importance is greater, but the principle throughout is the fame. I believe it is not denied that Mr. Steuart was the

、

bona fide purchaser of Somerset, in the legal course of trade. I do not apprehend that any evidence was offered to fhew that he had stolen him, or that he came by him. otherwise furreptitiously. If my memory does not fail me, the property was proved, by affidavit, before your Lordship; or it was stated in the return made to the Writ of Habeas Corpus; but in either way it is of no concern, fince the

title-deeds are

not

not now before the Court as the objects of Litigation [e].

[e] With respect to the ftatute of the 5th of Geo. II. c. 7. there are not wanting frequent inftances of its having been inforced in this country; particularly in a cafe of the noted Rice: who, forging a Letter of Attorney with intent to defraud the Bank of England of a confiderable fum of money, fled to France, was delivered up by that Court, and afterwards hanged at Tyburn. It seems, upon his abfconding, a commiffion of Bankruptcy was awarded against him; and the Commiffioners, as I am credibly informed, under this very Act of Parliament here mentioned, fold a Negroe of his in the city of London, as his property, and among his other goods and chattels, for the fatisfaction of the creditors. But this act does not require cases for its confirmation, neither is it the place where executed that I contend for: it is the vefting the property, without provifo or condition, that furmounts all objection. Suppose I had purchased a Negroe in the Ifland of Barbados, or in any other part of America, that had been extended there at the suit of the King for a debt due to him, and had brought this Negroe with me to England: would Mr.Hargrave, or any other lawyer, fay, that a writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other writ whatfoever not founded on the verdict of a jury, could difpoffefs me of a property, which I held under the sense, letter, and spirit of an Act of Parliament? Can any implication of law operate against the exprefs words and meaning of a law? And would it not be reductio ad abfurdum to argue thus?

Here