FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42  
43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   >>   >|  
refore the fact well authenticated, as it relates _to original Government grants and permissions_, that the owners of many of the Creole slaves in our colonies have no better title to them as property, than as being the descendants of persons forced away from their country and brought thither by a traffic, which had its allowed origin in _fraud and falsehood_. Neither have the masters of slaves in our colonies any title to their slaves on account of any _charters_, which they may be able to produce, though their charters are the only source of their power. It is through these that they have hitherto legislated, and that they continue to legislate. Take away their charters, and they would have no right or power to legislate at all. And yet, though they have their charters, and though the slavery, which now exists, has been formed and kept together entirely by the laws, which such charters have given them the power to make, this very slavery _is illegal_. There is not an individual, who holds any of the slaves by a _legal_ title: for it is expressed in all these charters, whether in those given to William Penn and others for the continent of North America, or in those given for the islands now under our consideration, that "the laws and statutes, to be made there, are _not to be repugnant_, but, as near as may be, _agreeable, to the laws_ and statutes of this our _kingdom of Great Britain_." But is it consistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have the power of forcing another to work for him without wages? Is it consistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have the power of flogging, beating, bruising, or wounding another at his discretion? Is it consistent with the laws of England, that a man should be judged by any but his peers? Is it consistent with the same laws, that a man should be deprived of the power of giving evidence against the man who has injured him? or that there should be a privileged class, against whom no testimony can be admitted on certain occasions, though the perpetrators of the most horrid crimes? But when we talk of consistency on this occasion, let us not forget that old law of Barbadoes, made while the charter of that island was fresh in every body's memory, and therefore in the very teeth of the charter itself, which runs thus: "If any slave, under punishment by his master or by his order, shall suffer in life or member, no person shall be liable to any fine
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42  
43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

charters

 
slaves
 

consistent

 
England
 

legislate

 

statutes

 
slavery
 

charter

 

colonies

 

bruising


beating

 
flogging
 

wounding

 

discretion

 

memory

 

judged

 

suffer

 
member
 

person

 

liable


master

 

punishment

 

forcing

 

deprived

 

horrid

 
forget
 
perpetrators
 

occasions

 
crimes
 

consistency


occasion
 

admitted

 

privileged

 

injured

 
giving
 

evidence

 

Barbadoes

 

testimony

 
island
 

individual


allowed

 
traffic
 

thither

 

country

 

brought

 
origin
 

produce

 
source
 

account

 

falsehood