Besides, it is seemingly a less systematical arrangement. But he proceeds to say, “There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the antient Germans, or the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; though low people without education will start up among us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one Negroe as a man of parts and learning; but, ’tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.” Thus Mr. Hume marks the difference betwixt the several species of men, by their natural capacity or incapacity of exerting in degree the rational powers, or faculties of the understanding; which is the distinction that Mr. Locke makes between man and brutes. I distinguish man from man by the moral sense or moral powers; and although a Negroe is found, in Jamaica or elsewhere, ever so sensible and acute; yet if he is incapable of moral sensations, or perceives them only as beasts do simple ideas, without the power of combination, in order to use (which I verily believe to be the case) it is a mark that distinguishes him from the man who feels and is capable of these moral sensations, who knows their application and the purposes of them, as sufficiently, as the Negroe himself is distinguished from the highest species of brutes.
[17] There are two cases referred to in Mr. Hargrave’s argument, (p. 52. and p. 54.) which are not only fully explanatory of the above principles, but support the opinion of the Lord Chancellours, Hardwick and Talbot; and are in direct proof of the whole of my argument. The cases I allude to, are those of Butts and Penny, and Gelly against Cleve. The first was an action of Trover for 10 Negroes; and there was a special verdict, &c. The Court held, that Negroes being usually bought and sold amongst Merchants, and being infidels, there might be a property in them sufficient to maintain the action. In the second case, the Court is said to have held, that Trover will lie for a Negroe boy, because Negroes are Heathens; and therefore a man may have property in them; and the Court without averment will take notice, that they are Heathens. Now upon two judicial determinations are the very reasons of my argument held and alledged. Negroes are infidels: Negroes are Heathens: of course unpossessed of those religious and moral truths, which the Gospel impresses upon all minds capable of receiving them; and therefore the law, regarding the inferior state of their nature, has considered them merely as property bought and sold among merchants.
[18] Vid. his Spirit of Laws, vol. i. p. 341.
[19] See also the Assiento, or Contract made with the South Sea Company, for supplying the Spaniards with Negroes by treaty of commerce between Great Britain and Spain, in the year 1713-14; wherein they are considered as dutyable commodities, and named merely as matters of merchandize; and if thus conceived of at this time, and on so solemn an occasion as a Treaty of Peace, by what new law or magic is it that they are now become the subjects of the Crown of England, and intitled to the benefit of the Habeas Corpus?
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
[Pg ix:] ‘himself a Vellein’ replaced by ‘himself a Villein’.
[Pg 47:] ‘the objects of of’ replaced by ‘the objects of’.
[Pg 70:] ‘Δὸς ϖοῦ ϛῶ’ could be replaced by ‘Δὸς ποῦ στῶ’ to avoid the unusual pi and stigma characters.