LETTER II. Historical and judicial records of Slavery-Reasons why Slavery could not be Abolished and proofs that it should not have been AbolishedEmancipation would make the condition of the Slaves worse-The Abolitionists cannot accomplish their purposes even with the assent of the Slaveholders-Slavery was Abolished in the North by selling the Slaves to the South. HISTORY informs us that slavery existed in Great Britain, or in her provinces, by the authority of her laws, from the first dawn of civilisation to a period within the memory of all men who are now in the meridian of life. The same may be said in regard to almost every nation of the world, great and small. It is fair to assume from this fact that slavery has existed since man was created; and we have no reason to believe that it ever became unpopular or unfashionable until a very late period in the world's history. However that may be, it forms no part of my purpose to prove the wisdom or the folly of the world in its treatment of this question during the past half century. It is not my purpose to discuss abstract, but actual slavery; not what might be theoretically best under an assumed state of circumstances, but what is best under the actual circumstances; in short, not whether slavery is right or wrong under all circum stances, but whether it is right or wrong under the circumstances now existing in the planting States of America. To understand what those circumstances are, it is necessary to understand how they were brought about. I have said that slavery existed in England as far back as we have records or the tradition of a Government; though that is not the term by which it was known. However, in substance, it was the same as now exists in a modified form in America. Villenage under the common law of England was thus described by that eminent lawyer Hargrave, in 1771 (see 20 Howell's State Trials) : -- The condition of a villien had most of the incidents which I have before described in giving the idea of slavery in general. His service was uncertain and indeterminate, such as his lord thought fit to require; or, as some of our ancient writers express it, he knew not in the evening what he was to do in the morning; he was bound to do whatever he was commanded. He was liable to beating, imprisonment, and every other chastisement his lord might prescribe, except killing and maiming. He was incapable of acquiring property for his own benefit, the rule being quicquid acquiritur domino. He was himself the subject of property; as such, saleable and transmissible. . . . The origin of villenage is principally to be derived from the wars between our British, Saxon, Danish, and Norman ancestors. . . . There were many bondmen in England before the Conquest, as appears by the Anglo-Saxon laws regulating them; and therefore it would be nearer the truth to attribute the origin of villiens as well to the preceding wars and revolutions as to the effect of the Conquest. In the time of Elizabeth this form of slavery existed in full force; but during the reign of that queen, certain measures were instituted which had the effect of finally eradicating white slavery from the territory of Great Britain. This result, however, was very gradually achieved; for it did not finally disappear until the reign of James II. In the appendix to 20th volume of Howell's State Trials may be found a commission issued by Queen Elizabeth to Sir William Mildmay and Cecil Lord Burleigh, authorising them to manumit her slaves in certain counties named, upon the condition, however, that the said slaves should pay a reasonable sum of money for their liberty! It may be inferred that in manumitting their slaves, the lords imitated the example of their sovereign, and surrendered to them their liberty only upon the receipt of their estimated value in money. The queen's commission is in the following language: Elizabeth, by the grace of God, &c. To our right trustie and well-beloved consellor, Sir M. Cecill, of the Garter Knighte, lord Burghly, and Highe Treasorer of England, and to our trustie and right well-beloved consellor, Sir Walter Mildmay, Chauncellor and Under Treasorer of our Exchequer, greetinge. Whereas divers and sundrie of our poore faithfull and loyal subjects, being borne bonde in blode and regargaunt to divers and sundrie our manor and possessions within our realm of England, have made humble suyte unto us to be manumysed, enfraunchised, and made free with theire children and sequells, by reason whereof they, theire children, and theire sequells may become more apte and fitte members for the service of us, and of our commonwealthe: We, therefore, having tender consideration of their said sute, and well considering the same to be acceptable to Almighty God, do commytt and give unto you full power and authoritie by these presents to accepte, admitte, and received to be manumysed, and enfraunchised, and made free, such and so many of our bondmen and bondwomen in blood, with all and every their children and sequells, their goodes, landes, tenements, and hereditaments, as are now apperteynyng, or regardaunte to all or any of our manors, and within the said several counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somersett, and Gloucester, as to you shal seam mete and convenient, compounding with them for suche reasonable fines, or sommes of money to be taken and received to our use for the manumyssion and enfranchisement, and for the possessions, &c., &c., as you and they can agree for the same after your wisdoms and discretions. We may reasonably conclude, however, that the abolition of this species of servitude - which is as fully described by the word 'slavery' as that which exists at the present day in America-did not have its origin in a belief that slavery was even abstractly wrong; for while white slavery was disappearing from England and France, all the Christian nations of Europe, with England, Spain, France, and Portugal at their head, were establishing black slavery over the entire continent of America. All America, North and South, was occupied or held by these Powers. Louis XIII. established slavery in all his colonies in America; Portugal established it in Brazil, and also in all her other colonies; Spain, by the advice of Las Casas, substituted African slaves for the native Indians, who had been nearly exterminated during the time they had been under subjection to the European Powers; while England supplied her possessions in North America and the West Indies. After England succeeded, in 1713, in wresting from France the contract with Spain for supplying her provinces with slaves, it was no uncommon occurrence for slaves to be sold-in fact, they were sold, almost daily on the public Exchange, London (see 2 Haggard's Reports, page 105). The question having arisen as to the legal right to hold slaves in England, it was submitted for decision by the Crown to the twelve judges of the empire. Their judgement was rendered in the following words: In pursuance of His Majesty's Order in Council, hereunto annexed, we do humbly certify our opinion that negroes are merchandise.' Subsequently, the merchants of London submitted the question to Sir Philip Yorke, the Solicitor, and Lord Talbot, the Attorney-General. They certified that 'a slave coming from the West Indies into England, with or without his master, doth not become free; and his master's property in him is not thereby determined nor varied; and the master may legally compel him to return to the plantations.' In 1749, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, affirmed the doctrine above stated, by a decree in a cause in Chancery involving this issue. This ruling of the law was recognised until 1761, when it was decided by Lord Mansfield that the colonial laws could |