Whatever right the members of a provincial assembly may have to enact bye laws, for particular exigences among themselves, yet in so doing they are certainly bound, in duty to their sovereign, to observe most strictly the fundamental principles of that constitution, which his Majesty is sworn to maintain; for wheresoever the bounds of the British empire are extended, there the common law of England must of course take place, and cannot be safely set aside by any private law whatsoever, because the introduction of an unnatural tyranny must necessarily endanger the King's dominions. The many alarming insurrections of slaves in the several colonies, are sufficient proofs of this. The common law of England ought therefore to be so established in every province, as to include the respective bye laws of each province; instead of being by them excluded, which latter has been too much the case.

Every inhabitant of the British colonies, black as well as white, bond as well as free, are undoubtedly the King's subjects, during their residence within the limits of the King's dominions; and as such, are entitled to personal protection, however bound in service to their respective masters; therefore, when any of these are put to death, "without the solemnity of a jury," I fear that there is too much reason to attribute the guilt of murder to every person concerned in ordering, the same, or in consenting thereto; and all such persons are certainly responsible to the King and his laws, for the loss of a subject. The horrid iniquity, injustice, and dangerous tendency of the several plantation laws which I have quoted, are so apparent, that it is unnecessary for me to apologize for the freedom with which I have treated them. 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; or, perhaps, that ever were on earth. On the other hand, if it be said, that it is impossible to govern slaves without such inhuman severity, and detestable injustice, the same will certainly be an invincible argument against the least toleration of slavery amongst christians, because the temporal profit of the planter or master, however lucrative, cannot compensate the forfeiture of his everlasting welfare, or (at least I may be allowed to say) the apparent danger of such a forfeiture.

Oppression is a most grievous crime, and the cries of these much injured people, (though they are only poor ignorant heathens) will certainly reach heaven! The scriptures (which are the only true foundation of all laws) denounce a tremendous judgment against the man who should offend even one little-one; "It were better for him (even the merciful Saviour of the world hath himself declared) that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke xvii. 2. Who then shall attempt to vindicate those inhuman establishments of government, under which, even our own countrymen so grievously offend and oppress (not merely one, or a few little ones, but) an immense multitude of men, women, children, and the children of their children, from generation to generation? May it not be said with like justice, it were better for the English nation that these American dominions had never existed, or even that they should have been sunk into the sea, than that the kingdom of Great Britain should be loaded with the horrid guilt of tolerating such abominable wickedness! In short, if the King's prerogative is not speedily exerted for the relief of his Majesty's oppressed and much injured subjects in the British colonies, (because to relieve the subject from the oppression of petty tyrants is the principal use of the royal prerogative, as well as the principal and most natural means of maintaining the same) and for the extension of the British constitution to the most distant colonies, whether in the East or West Indies, it must inevitably be allowed, that great share of this enormous guilt will certainly rest on this side the water.

I hope this hint will be taken notice of by those whom it may concern; and that the freedom of it will be excused, as from a loyal and disinterested adviser.

Extracts from the writings
of several noted authors,
on the subject of the,
slavery of the Negroes,
viz.
George Wallace,
Francis Hutcheson,
James Foster.

George Wallace, in his System of the Principles of the Laws of Scotland, speaking of the slavery of the Negroes in our colonies, says, "We all know that they (the Negroes) are purchased from their Princes, who pretend to have a right to dispose of them, and that they are, like other commodities, transported, by the merchants who have bought them, into America, in order to be exposed to sale. If this trade admits of a moral or a rational justification, every crime, even the most atrocious, may be justified. Government was instituted for the good of mankind; kings, princes, governors, are not proprietors of those who are subject to their authority; they have not a right to make them miserable. On the contrary, their authority is vested in them, that they may, by the just exercise of it, promote the happiness of their people. Of course, they have not a right to dispose of their liberty, and to sell them for slaves. Besides no man has a right to acquire, or to purchase them; men and their liberty are not in commercio; they are not either saleable or purchaseable. One, therefore, has no body but himself to blame, in case he shall find himself deprived of a man, whom he thought he had, by buying for a price, made his own; for he dealt in a trade which was illicit, and was prohibited by the most obvious dictates of humanity. For these reasons, every one of those unfortunate men who are pretended to be slaves, has a right to be declared to be free, for he never lost his liberty; he could not lose it; his Prince had no power to dispose of him. Of course, the sale was ipso jure void. This right he carries about with him, and is entitled every where to get it declared. As soon, therefore, as he comes into a country in which the judges are not forgetful of their own humanity, it is their duty to remember that he is a man, and to declare him to be free. I know it has been said, that questions concerning the state of persons ought to be determined by the law of the country to which they belong; and that, therefore, one who would be declared to be a slave in America, ought, in case he should happen to be imported into Britain, to be adjudged, according to the law of America, to be a slave; a doctrine than which nothing can be more barbarous. Ought the judges of any country, out of respect to the law of another, to shew no respect to their kind, and to humanity? out of respect to a law, which is in no sort obligatory upon them, ought they to disregard the law of nature, which is obligatory on all men, at all times, and in all places? Are any laws so binding as the eternal laws of justice? Is it doubtful, whether a judge ought to pay greater regard to them, than to those arbitrary and inhuman usages which prevail in a distant land? Aye, but our colonies would be ruined if slavery was abolished. Be it so; would it not from thence follow, that the bulk of mankind ought to be abused, that our pockets may be filled with money, or our mouths with delicacies? The purses of highwaymen would be empty, in case robberies were totally abolished; but have men a right to acquire money by going out to the highway? Have men a right to acquire it by rendering their fellow-creatures miserable? Is it lawful to abuse mankind, that the avarice, the vanity, or the passions of a few may be gratified? No! There is such a thing as justice to which the most sacred regard is due. It ought to be inviolably observed. Have not these unhappy men a better right to their liberty, and to their happiness, than our American merchants have to the profits which they make by torturing their kind? Let, therefore, our colonies be ruined, but let us not render so many men miserable. Would not any of us, who should—be snatched by pirates from his native land, think himself cruelly abused, and at all times entitled to be free? Have not these unfortunate Africans, who meet with the same cruel fate, the same right? Are they not men as well as we, and have they not the same sensibility? Let us not, therefore, defend or support a usage which is contrary to all the laws of humanity.

"But it is false, that either we or our colonies would be ruined by the abolition of slavery. It might occasion a stagnation of business for a short time. Every great alteration produces that effect; because mankind cannot, on a sudden, find ways of disposing of themselves, and of their affairs; but it would produce many happy effects. It is the slavery which is permitted in America, that has hindered it from becoming so soon populous as it would otherwise have done. Let the Negroes be free, and, in a few generations, this vast and fertile continent would be crowded with inhabitants; learning, arts, and every thing would flourish amongst them; instead of being inhabited by wild beasts, and by savages, it would be peopled by philosophers, and by men."

Francis Hutcheson, professor of philosophy at the university of Glasgow, in his System of Moral Philosophy, page 211, says "He who detains another by force in slavery, is always bound to prove his title. The slave sold, or carried into a distant country, must not be obliged to prove a negative, that he never forfeited his liberty. The violent possessor must, in all cases, shew his title, especially where the old proprietor is well known. In this case, each man is the original proprietor of his own liberty. The proof of his losing it must be incumbent on those who deprive him of it by force. The Jewish laws had great regard to justice, about the servitude of Hebrews, founding it only on consent, or some crime or damage, allowing them always a proper redress upon any cruel treatment, and fixing a limited time for it; unless upon trial the servant inclined to prolong it. The laws about foreign slaves had many merciful provisions against immoderate severity of the masters. But under christianity, whatever lenity was due from an Hebrew towards his countryman, must be due towards all; since the distinctions of nations are removed, as to the point of humanity and mercy, as well as natural right; nay, some of these rights granted over foreign slaves, may justly be deemed only such indulgences as those of poligamy and divorce, granting only external impunity in such practice, and not sufficient vindication of them in conscience."

Page 85. It is pleaded, that "In some barbarous nations, unless the captives were bought for slaves, they would be all murthered. They, therefore, owe their lives, and all they can do, to their purchasers; and so do their children, who would not otherwise have come into life." But this whole plea is no more than that of negotium utile gestum to which any civilized nation is bound by humanity; it is a prudent expensive office, done for the service of others without a gratuitous intention; and this founds no other right, than that to full compensation of all charges and labour employed for the benefit of others.

A set of inaccurate popular phrases blind us in these matters; "Captives owe their lives, and all to the purchasers, say they. Just in the same manner, we, our nobles, and princes, often owe our lives to midwives, chirurgeons, physicians," &c. one who was the means of preserving a man's life, is not therefore entitled to make him a slave, and sell him as a piece of goods. Strange, that in a nation where the sense of liberty prevails, where the christian religion is professed, custom and high prospects of gain can so stupify the conscience of men, and all sense of natural justice, that they can hear such computations made about the value of their fellow-men, and their liberty, without abhorrence and indignation.