Somersett's Case William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield

francis hargrave, represented james somersett in case

mansfield best known judgment in somersett s case on legality of keeping slaves in england. english had been involved in slave trade since 1553, , 1768, ships registered in liverpool, bristol , london carried more half slaves shipped in world. james somersett slave owned charles stewart, american customs officer sailed britain business, landing on 10 november 1769. few days later somersett attempted escape. recaptured in november , imprisoned on ship ann , mary, owned captain john knowles , bound british colony of jamaica. stewart intended sell him there. however, 3 people claiming somersett s godparents, john marlow, thomas walkin , elizabeth cade, made application before court of king s bench writ of habeas corpus, , captain knowles ordered produce somersett before court of king s bench, determine whether imprisonment legal.

mansfield ordered hearing 22 january 1772. following adjournment, case not heard until 7 february 1772. in meantime, case had attracted great deal of attention in press, , members of public forthcoming donations fund lawyers both sides of argument. activist layman, granville sharp, continually sought test cases against legal justifications slavery, somersett s real backer. when case heard, no fewer 5 advocates appeared slave, speaking @ 3 separate hearings between february , may. these lawyers included william davy sl, john glynn sl, james mansfield , francis hargrave, later become noted barrister based on work in case. charles stewart represented john dunning , james wallace.

on behalf of somersett, argued while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither common law of england, nor law made parliament recognised existence of slavery, , slavery therefore illegal. moreover, english contract law did not allow person enslave himself, nor contract binding without person s consent. arguments focused on legal details rather humanitarian principles. law passed in 1765 said lands, forts , slaves owned africa company property of crown, interpreted mean crown accepted slavery. when 2 lawyers charles stewart put case, argued contract sale of slave recognised in england, , therefore existence of slaves must legally valid.

after attorneys both sides had given arguments, mansfield called recess, saying [the case] required ... [a] consultation ... among twelve judges . finally, on 22 june 1772 mansfield gave judgment, ruled master not carry slave out of england force, , concluded:

the state of slavery of such nature, incapable of being introduced on reasons, moral or political; positive law, preserves force long after reasons, occasion, , time whence created, erased memory: s odious, nothing can suffered support it, positive law. whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow decision, cannot case allowed or approved law of england; , therefore black must discharged.

this not end slavery, confirmed illegal in england , wales, not in rest of british empire. result of mansfield s decision, between 14,000 , 15,000 slaves freed in england, of whom remained masters paid employees. decision apparently not followed; africans still hunted , kidnapped in london, liverpool , bristol sold elsewhere. (such incident recounted olaudah equiano in 1774 in autobiography, interesting narrative (1789).)

mansfield uncertain how applied specified in 1793 mulatto great-niece dido elizabeth belle considered free woman. (she had been born slavery illegitimate daughter of nephew in west indies lived him , wife 30 years.) in addition, advertisements 1770s show slaves continued bought , sold in england. mansfield referred slaves in judgment in later case. although slavery not abolished in british empire until 1834, mansfield s decision considered have been significant step in recognising illegality of slavery.