The Slave, Grace - RIT - People

1 The slave , Grace , 166 Eng. Rep. 179 (High Court of Admiralty, 1827) 1. Grace , a slave of Mrs. Allan of Antigua, came to England with him in 1822, remained there until 1823, returned to Antiqua and remained a domestic servant until she was seized by the waiter of the customs at Antigua because, it was claimed, she was illegally imported in 1823. Lower courts returned her to Mr. Allan, and the Crown appealed. 2. At issue is whether slavery was so divested by landing in England that it would not revive on a return to the place of birth and servitude (179).3. Of the !ve counts at issue, two are irrelevant, and two more turn on a statute, the 59 , , that is claimed to require that the transfer of slaves into or from Great Britain requires certain papers, which were not forthcoming.

2 But the statute concerns only transfers between colonies, not transfers involving England (180), and so those counts are not relevant The !fth charge is that she was free and so was illegally imported as a slave into Antigua and there illegally held and detained in slavery (180). So the question before the court upon which any decision rests is whether she was free. 5. But mere residence in England did not make her free. Manumission is required for freedom, and she was not manumitted while in The manners in which the slave was treated and this case is pleaded are both inconsistent with liberty. The slave did not of her own free will act to secure her liberty, but was seized by a customs of!

3 Cial and handed over to an of!cer of the Crown. And a free person is not to demand freedom by coming before a court pleading for freedom at the discretion of the of!cer of the Crown (182).b. The established record up until Sommersett was that a slave coming from the West Indies,..to Great Britain doth not become free,.. (182).c. Sommersett only established that the owners of slaves had no them in England, nor any power of sending them back to the colonies (183).d. Any appeal to villenage is beside the point since it has ceased to exist in England for over 150 years in any form (183-84). e. No record exists of any slave being free after having been brought to England and then having returned home (185).

4 F. A change in legal status is commonly produced by a change of local situation (185). Persons bound by contracts which constrain their liberty -- apprentices -- lose their character and condition for the time when they reside in another country,..though they return to their original servitude and obligations upon coming back to the country they quitted (184).g. The Once free for an hour, free for ever ..interest[s] none but the People of this country (186). It lacks universal Were it true that slaves could become free by setting foot in England, the public inconvenience could be great since they could return to the colonies free and constitute a group of individuals not only extremely burdensome to the colony, but.

5 Highly dangerous to its peace and security (186).i)No legal precedents exist for residence in England making her free:1. Shanley v. Harvey is not a precedent. The error of the opinion seems to be, that, because the slave code was overruled in England, where the law of England differed from it, it was therefore abrogated in the colonies in toto (187). It was changed in only two respects: what was given to the slave remained the slave s, and a slave may have a habeas corpus if restrained of his liberty (187).2. Knight v. Wedderburn, a 1778 case in Scotland, is not a precedent either. All that it determines is that different countries have different laws upon the same subject and that slaves coming into England are free there, and that they cannot be sent out of the country by any process to be there executed (187).

6 3. Keane v. Boycott concerns a slave who made a contract with his master to serve him for !ve years in England. Before the !ve years was up, the slave was enticed into the military, the master sued the of!cer who enticed his servant, and the master won. But this case has nothing to do with slavery. It turns on the law of Williams v. Brown is directly to the point of this case. A runaway slave came to England, signed on as a sailor, but on the ship s coming into Granada, the very island from which the man had deserted, his master discovered him and laid claim to him. The captain of the vessel and the master worked out an agreement that the slave would be manumitted, but would contract with the captain for three years.

7 All the judges agreed that he was a slave in Granada, though a freeman in England, and the proof is that upon his return to Granada he had to manumitted. Setting foot in England did not make him free in Granada (188).4. Forbes v. Cochrane and Cockburn is not relevant because all it showed was that slaves accepted onto a British ship of war were free while on the ship, the Captain having extended the rights and immunities of England to them, and that they could not be compelled through force to return to their The act of Antigua of 1816 is not relevant since of the three conditions it states as providing for freedom -- being legally free, in equity or conscience ought to be free, or has been any length of time a free person -- are not applicable (189).

8 6. Although Antigua has passed an act recognizing no other law but the common law of England, that act ignores legitimate custom, and that is the basis of slavery in Antigua (190).6. Although England may discourage [slavery] in the mother-country, she encourages it in its colonies by, for instance, permitting slaves in the colonies to be bought and sold by sale made in England (191).7. France has treated slavery differently than England, but that is not to the point of the present case (191-92)8. No doubt many situations create problems under the current law. Older individuals who have lived for a time in England and elsewhere where they are free are deemed slaves upon their return to their native land, but appeal needs to be made to Parliament to amend the laws that permit such a practice (192).