being enacted, why is not an act making property of a colony of Africans fufceptible of the fame nullity? The reafon, my Lord, is twofold: first, because in the one act, fuch a law is not only repugnant to, but abfolutely fubverfive of, the laws of England: fecondly, because in the other act, fuch a law is not only confiftent with, but founded on, the laws of England: and this, my Lord, proves to mathematical demonftration, that the colony laws are not only in general dependent on the laws of England, but, in particular inftances, owe their origin and fource to them: so that, as the refracted rays of light, diverging from one point through a prism, may be concentred in the fame focus; in like manner may these laws, notwithstanding their number and variety, be collected and difpofed of in one common system or digest, as parts of the fame whole. From what therefore I have here fuggefted, my Lord, I mean to conclude generally, that the right and property, not only of Mr. Steuart in his Negroe A C 3 Negroe Somerfet, but of every subject of Great Britain in his Negroe or Negroes, either in the colonies or elsewhere, is a right and property founded in him by the law of this land; that the royal grants, letters patent, and charters, for and of the African trade and company, confirmed and established by acts of Parliament, are the foundation whereupon all the laws of the colonies, refpecting their Negroes, are built; and that, without fuch fanction, those laws could never have been made, For, my Lord, it is evident that the colonies could not have had power of themfelves to inftitute this trade to Africa; neither have they the means to fupport it. Without this trade then to Africa, no Negroes could have been imported to them; and if they had had no Negroes among them, they had needed no laws appertaining to Negroes [g]. But [g] Mr. Hargrave further fays, in his argument, p. 67, and 68, "The flavery of Negroes being admitted to be lawful now in America, however queftionable its first introduction there might be, it may be urged that the But, my Lord, it may be urged, that although the laws of England may make property of Negroes, they do not make flaves of them. I fhould imagine that, although an individual, I might answer individually for every American fubject of the lex loci ought to prevail, and that the master's property in the Negroe as a flave having had a lawful com. mencement in America, cannot be justly varied by bringing him into England." This is one among other objections raised by Mr. Hargrave in order to receive his anfwer. Now as to the doubt expreffed here, namely, however queftionable its first introduction there might be," the right of granting letters patent, and of erecting corporations for the purpofes of trade, being the undoubted prerogative of the king as arbiter of the commerce of his domini ons; the lawfulness of this trade to Africa is no more to be queftioned whilft it was carried on under this direction, than it is to be questioned now it is under the controul of parliament. It was before conftitutionally legal, it is now parliamentary fo but the answer to the objection itfelf is as little fatisfactory as the doubt is. Here a moft unnatural diftinction is aimed at between the colony laws in America, and the laws of their mother country: putting the lex loci of these colonies upon the fame footing with the lex loci of Ruffia or Pruffia, or any other foreign country: whereas the lex loci of the colonies is founded on the lex loci of England, and is, in totidem verbis, the fame, as has been made to appear. the the King, that they do not defire any greater interest in their Negroes than that of property. It is felf-fufficient to answer all their purposes, and to produce all that great good which this nation experiences therefrom. It is a fuppofition of inhumanity, I hope, inapplicable to these people, that they fhould wish to make flaves of their Negroes, merely for the fake of flavery; and if it fhould appear, that there is no fuch law exifting in America, as the law of flavery, confidered as fuch, I should infer that the contrary prefumption was fitteft to be entertained and received. The law refpecting Negroes there, my Lord, is the law of property, confentaneous to the law of England. By this law they are. made real estate, for the purpofe of defcent, and goods and chattels quoad the payment of debts. This is the original and fundamental law concerning Negroes. I do not remember ever to have feen the word Slavery made ufe of, in any law, of any colony, in America. I admit that Ne groes groes are there termed flaves: but I will tell your Lordship why. In the criminal law, where they become neceffarily the objects of punishment, it is effential that they should have fome descriptive name or title given to them. It is for this reafon, therefore, that they are there, and there only, fo called. As they had been already defined to be property, as Negroes, it could not be faid that, if property should ftrike his mafter, property shall be punished; but it is faid, that if a flave fhould ftrike his master, this flave shall be punished accordingly. Now in the antient law of England, my Lord, when flavery was part of the conftitution, your Lordship knows, that not only the villein was defcribed, but the law of villenage or bondage was also known and laid down. In the laws of America, the flave is made mention of, for the reafon affigned; but the law of flavery, however impliedly, is no where exprefsly to be found, |