Exposure

of abuses, 1792 and 1815.

The monstrous evils and abuses of imprisonment for debt, and the sufferings of prisoners, were fully exposed, in an able report to the House of Commons drawn by Mr. Grey in 1792.1 But for several years, these evils received little correction. In 1815 the prisons were still over-crowded, and their wretched inmates left without allowance of food, fuel, bedding, or medical attendance. Complaints were still heard of their perishing of cold and hunger.'

Debtors'

Act, 1813.

Special acts had been passed, from time to time, Insolvent since the reign of Anne,3 for the relief of insolvents: but they were of temporary and partial operation. Overcrowded prisons had been sometimes thinned: but the rigours and abuses of the laws affecting debtors were unchanged; and thousands of insolvents still languished in prison. In 1760, a remedial measure of more general operation was passed: but was soon afterwards repealed. Provision was also made for the release of poor debtors in certain cases: 5 but it was not until 1813 that insolvents were placed under the jurisdiction of a court, and entitled to seek their discharge on rendering a true account of all their debts and property. A distinction was at length recognised between poverty and crime. This

1 Com. Journ., xlvii. 640.

6

2 7th March, 1815, Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxx. 39; Commons' Report on King's Bench, Fleet, and Marshalsea Prisons, 1815. The King's Bench, calculated to hold 220 prisoners, had 600; the Fleet, estimated to hold 200, had 769.

31 Anne, st. i. c. 25.

41 Geo. III. c. 17; Adolph. Hist., i. 17, n.

5 32 Geo. II. c. 28; 33 Geo. III. c. 5.

* 53 Geo. III. c. 102; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvi. 301, &c.

of relief to

debtors.

great remedial law restored liberty to crowds of wretched debtors. In the next thirteen years upwards of 50,000 were set free.1 Thirty Later years later, its beneficent principles were measures further extended, when debtors were not only released from confinement, but able to claim protection to their liberty, on giving up all their goods. And at length, in 1861, the law attained its fullest development, in the liberal measure of Sir R. Bethell: when fraudulent debt was dealt with as a crime, and imprisonment of common debtors was repudiated.3 Nor did the enlightened charity of the legislature rest here. Debtors already in confinement were not left to seek their liberation: but were set free by the officers of the Court of Bankruptcy. Some had grown familiar with their prison walls, and having lost all fellowship with the outer world, clung to their miserable cells, as to a home." They were led forth gently, and restored to a life that had become strange to them; and their untenanted dungeons were condemned to destruction.

The free soil of England has, for ages, been relieved from the reproach of slavery. The The negro ancient condition of villenage expired case, 1771. about the commencement of the seventeenth century; and no other form of slavery was recognised

' Mr. Hume's Return, 1827 (430).

2 Protection Acts, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 96; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96. Bankruptcy Act, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, § 221.

Ibid., § 98-105.

In January, 1862, John Miller was removed from the Queen's Bench Prison, having been there since 1814.-Times, Jan. 23rd, 1862. Noy, 27. Hargrave's Argument in Negro Case, St. Tr., xx. 40;

6

.

by our laws. In the colonies, however, it was legalised by statute; and it was long before the rights of a colonial slave, in the mother country, were ascertained, Lord Holt, indeed, had pronounced an opinion that, as soon as a negro comes into England, he becomes free;' and Mr. Justice Powell had affirmed that the law takes no notice of a negro.' But these just opinions were not confirmed by express adjudication until the celebrated case of James Sommersett in 1771. This negro

having been brought to England by his owner, Mr. Stewart, left that gentleman's service, and refused to return to it. Mr. Stewart had him seized and placed in irons, on board a ship then lying in the Thames, and about to sail for Jamaica,—where he intended to sell his mutinous slave. But while the negro was still lying on board, he was brought before the Court of King's Bench by habeas corpus. The question was now fully discussed, more particularly in a most learned and able argument by Mr. Hargrave; and at length, in June 1772, Lord Mansfield pronounced the opinion of the Court, that slavery in England was illegal, and that the negro must be set free.3

It was a righteous judgment: but scarcely worthy of the extravagant commendation bestowed upon it, at that time and since. This boasted law, as declared by Lord Mansfield, was already recog

Smith's Commonwealth, book 2, ch. 10; Barrington on the Statutes, 2nd ed. p. 232.

110 Will. III. c. 26; 5 Geo. II. c. 7; 32 Geo. II. c. 31.

2 Smith v. Browne and Cowper, 2 Salk. 666.

Case of James Sommersett, St. Tr., xx. 1; Lofft's Rep., 1.

nised in France, Holland, and some other European countries; and as yet England had shown no symptoms of compassion for the negro beyond her own shores.'

2

In Scotland, negro slaves continued to be sold as chattels, until late in the last century. It Negroes in was not until 1756, that the lawfulness of Scotland. negro slavery was questioned. In that year, however, a negro who had been brought to Scotland, claimed his liberty of his master, Robert Sheddan, who had put him on board ship to return to Virginia. But before his claim could be decided, the poor negro died.3 But for this sad incident, a Scotch court would first have had the credit of setting the negro free on British soil. Four years after the case of Sommersett, the law of Scotland was settled. Mr. Wedderburn had brought with him to Scotland, as his personal servant, a negro named Knight, who continued several years in his service, and married in that country. But, at length, he claimed his freedom. The sheriff being appealed to, held that the state of slavery is not recognised by the laws of this kingdom.' The case being brought before the Court of Session, it was adjudged that the master had no right to the negro's service, nor to send him out of the country without his consent.*

6

1 Hargrave's Argument, St. Tr., xx. 62.

2 Chambers' Domestic Annals of Scotland, iii. 453. On the 2nd May, 1722, an advertisement appeared in the Edinburgh Evening Courant, announcing that a stolen negro had been found, who would be sold to pay expenses, unless claimed within two weeks.Ibid.

See Dictionary of Decisions, tit. Slave, iii. 14545.

4 Ibid., p. 14549.

salters, in

Scotland.

The negro in Scotland was now assured of freeColliers and dom: but, startling as it may sound, the slavery of native Scotchmen continued to be recognised, in that country, to the very end of last century. The colliers and salters were unquestionably slaves. They were bound to continue their service during their lives, were fixed to their places of employment, and sold with the works to which they belonged. So completely did the law of Scotland regard them as a distinct class, not entitled to the same liberties as their fellow-subjects, that they were excepted from the Scotch Habeas Corpus Act of 1701. excuse of being a remnant of the ancient feudal state of villenage, which had expired before coalmines were yet worked in Scotland. But being paid high wages, and having peculiar skill, their employers had originally contrived to bind them to serve for a term of years, or for life; and such service at length became a recognised custom.1 In 1775 their condition attracted the notice of the legislature, and an act was passed for their relief.2 Its preamble stated that many colliers and salters are in a state of slavery and bondage;' and that their emancipation would remove the reproach of allowing such a state of servitude to exist in a free country.' But so deeply rooted was this hateful custom, that Parliament did not venture to condemn it as illegal. It was provided that colliers

Nor had their slavery the

6

1 Forb. Inst., part 1, b. 2, t. 3; Macdonal. Inst., i. 63; Cockburn's Mem., 76.

215 Geo. III. c. 28.