Chapter XXVII: Slavery (2)

The Roman jurists held up slavery as a mitigation of the horrors of war: the capture and preservation of enemies, they said, was its sole and exclusive origin in the past.[147] But in Rome as elsewhere, when once established, it contained in itself the germ of extension; all the children of a female slave followed the condition of the mother, according to the principle applicable to the offspring of the lower animals--"Partus sequitur ventrem." And sooner or later, when these sources proved insufficient to maintain the supply, a regular commerce in slaves was established, which was based on the systematically prosecuted hunting of men in foreign lands.[148] To a much smaller extent the slave class was recruited by Roman citizens--by children sold by their fathers, by insolvent debtors, or by criminals condemned to servitude as a punishment for some heinous offence.[149] The idea of a Roman becoming the slave of a fellow-citizen was never quite agreeable to the Roman mind. According to an ancient law the debtor, after being made over to the creditor, should be sold abroad or _trans Tiberim_.[150] Subsequently, in 326 B.C., the creditor's lien was restricted to the goods of his debtor, if the latter was a Roman citizen;[151] and during the Pagan Empire the sale of freeborn {692} children by their fathers was prohibited.[152] The power, originally unlimited, which the master had over his slave was also, in the course of time, subjected to limitations. We have seen that since the days of Claudius and Antoninus Pius legal check was put on the master's right of killing his slave.[153] The Lex Petronia, A.D. 61, forbade masters to compel their slaves to fight with wild beasts.[154] In the time of Nero an official was appointed to hear complaints of the wrongs done by masters to their slaves.[155] Antoninus Pius directed that slaves treated with excessive cruelty, who had taken refuge at an altar or imperial image, should be sold; and this provision was extended to cases in which the master had employed a slave in a way degrading to him or beneath his character.[156] In public auctions of slaves regard was paid to the claims of relationship,[157] and in the interpretation of testaments it was assumed that members of the same family were not to be separated by the division of the succession.[158] In those days when Roman slavery had lost its original patriarchal and, to speak with Mommsen,[159] "in some measure innocent" character, when the victories of Rome and the increasing slave trade had introduced into the city innumerable slaves, when those simpler habits of life which in early times somewhat mitigated the rigour of the law had changed--the lot of the Roman slave was often extremely hard, and numerous acts of shocking cruelty were committed.[160] But we also hear, from the early days of the Empire, that masters who had been cruel to their slaves were pointed at with disgust in all parts of the city, and were hated and loathed.[161] And with a fervour which can hardly be surpassed Seneca and other Stoics argued that the slave is a being with human dignity and human rights, born of the same race as ourselves, living the same life, {693} and dying the same death--in short, that our slaves "are also men, and friends, and our fellow-servants."[162] Epictetus even went so far as to condemn altogether the keeping of slaves, a radicalism explicable from the history of his own life. "What you avoid suffering yourself," he says, "seek not to impose on others. You avoid slavery, for instance; take care not to enslave. For if you can bear to exact slavery from others, you appear to have been yourself a slave."[163] These teachings could not fail to influence both legislation and public sentiment. Imbued with the Stoic philosophy, the jurists of the classical period declared that all men are originally free by the law of Nature, and that slavery is only "an institution of the Law of Nations, by which one man is made the property of another, in opposition to natural right."[164]

[Footnote 147: Hunter, _Exposition of Roman Law_, p. 160 _sq._ _Institutiones_, i. 3. 3:--"Slaves are called _servi_, because generals are wont to sell their captives, and so to preserve (_servare_), and not to destroy them. They are also called _mancipia_, because they are taken from the enemy with the strong hand (_manu capiuntur_)."]

[Footnote 148: Mommsen, _History of Rome_, iii. 305 _sq._ Wallon, _op. cit._ ii. 46 _sqq._ Ingram, _op. cit._ p. 38.]

[Footnote 149: Wallon, _op. cit._ ii. 18 _sqq._ Ingram, _op. cit._ p. 39. _Institutiones_, i. 12. 3.]

[Footnote 150: Mackenzie, _Studies in Roman Law_, p. 94.]

[Footnote 151: Livy, _Historiæ Romanæ_, viii. 28. Wallon, _op. cit._ ii. 29, n. 1.]

[Footnote 152: _Supra_, p. 615.]

[Footnote 153: _Supra_, p. 425 _sq._]

[Footnote 154: _Digesta_, xlviii. 8. 11. 2.]

[Footnote 155: Seneca, _De beneficiis_, iii. 22. 3.]

[Footnote 156: Wallon, _op. cit._ iii. 57 _sq._ Ingram, p. 63.]

[Footnote 157: Hunter, _Exposition of Roman Law_, p. 159.]

[Footnote 158: Wallon, _op. cit._ iii. 53.]

[Footnote 159: Mommsen, _History of Rome_, iii. 305.]

[Footnote 160: See Lecky, _History of Morals_, i. 302 _sq._]

[Footnote 161: Seneca, _De clementia_, i. 18. 3.]

[Footnote 162: _Idem_, _Epistolæ_, 47. _Idem_, _De beneficiis_, iii. 28. Epictetus, _Dissertationes_, i. 13. See also the collection of statements referring to slavery made by Holland, _Reign of the Stoics_, p. 186 _sqq._]

[Footnote 163: Epictetus, _Fragmenta_, 42.]

[Footnote 164: _Institutiones_, i. 3. 2.]

Considering that Christianity has commonly been represented as almost the sole cause of the mitigation and final abolishment of slavery in Europe, it deserves special notice that the chief improvement in the condition of slaves at Rome took place at so early a period that Christianity could have absolutely no share in it. Nay, for about two hundred years after it was made the official religion of the Empire there was an almost complete pause in the legislation on the subject.[165] Under Justinian certain reforms were introduced: --enfranchisement was facilitated in various ways;[166] the rights of Roman citizens were granted to emancipated slaves, who had previously occupied an intermediate position between slavery and perfect freedom;[167] and though the law still refused to recognise the marriages of slaves, Justinian gave them a legal value after emancipation in establishing rights of succession.[168] But the inferior position of the slave was asserted as sternly as ever. He belonged to the {694} "corporeal" property of his master, he was reckoned among things which are tangible by their nature, like land, raiment, gold, and silver.[169] The constitution of Antoninus Pius restraining excessive severity on the part of masters was enforced, but the motive for this was not evangelic humanity.[170] It is said in the Institutes of Justinian, "This decision is a just one; for it greatly concerns the public weal, that no one be permitted to misuse even his own property."[171]

[Footnote 165: _Cf._ Lecky, _History of European Morals_, ii. 64.]

[Footnote 166: _Institutiones_, i. 5 _sqq._]

[Footnote 167: _Ibid._ i. 5. 3; iii. 7. 4.]

[Footnote 168: _Ibid._ iii. 7 pr.]

[Footnote 169: _Institutiones_, ii. 2. 1.]

[Footnote 170: _Cf._ Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_, ii. 14.]

[Footnote 171: _Institutiones_, i. 8. 2.]

It is curious to note that the inconsistency of slavery with the tenet, "Do to others as you would be done by," though emphasised by a pagan philosopher, never seems to have occurred to any of the early Christian writers. Christianity recognised slavery from the beginning. The principle that all men are spiritually equal in Christ does not imply that they should be socially equal in the world. Slavery does not prevent anybody from performing the duties incumbent on a Christian, it does not bar the way to heaven, it is an external affair only, nothing but a name. He only is really a slave who commits sin.[172] Slavery is of course a burden, but a burden which has been laid upon the back of transgression. Man when created by God was free, and nobody was the slave of another until that just man Noah cursed Ham, his offending son; slavery, then, is a punishment sent by Him who best knows how to proportionate punishment to offence.[173] The slave himself ought not to desire to become free,[174] nay, if the master offers him freedom he ought not to accept it.[175] Not one of the Fathers even {695} hints that slavery is unlawful or improper.[176] In the early age martyrs possessed slaves, and so did abbots, bishops, popes, monasteries, and churches;[177] Jews and pagans only were prohibited from acquiring Christian slaves.[178] So little was the abolition of slavery thought of that a Council at Orleans, in the middle of the sixth century, expressly decreed the perpetuity of servitude among the descendants of slaves.[179] On the other hand, the Church showed a zeal to prevent accessions to slavery from capture, but her exertions were restricted to Christian prisoners of war.[180] As late as the nineteenth century the right of enslaving captives was defended by Bishop Bouvier.[181]

[Footnote 172: Gregory Nazianzen, _Orationes_, xiv. 25 (Migne, _Patrologiæ cursus_, Ser. Graeca, xxxv. 891 _sq._). _Idem_, _Carmina_, i. 2. 26. 29 (_ibid._ xxxvii. 853); i. 2. 33. 133 _sqq._ (_ibid._ xxxvii. 937 _sq._). St. Chrysostom, _In cap. IX. Genes. Homilia XXIX._ 7 (_ibid._ liii. 270). _Idem_, _In Epist. I. ad Cor. Homilia XIX._ 5 (_ibid._ lxi. 158). St. Ambrose, _In Epistolam ad Colossenses_, 3 (Migne, _op. cit._ Ser. Lat. xvii. 439).]

[Footnote 173: St. Augustine, _De civitate Dei_, xix. 15 (Migne, _op. cit._ xli. 643 _sq._).]

[Footnote 174: St. Ignatius, _Epistola ad Polycarpum_, 4 (Migne, _op. cit._ Ser. Graeca, v. 723 _sq._). St. Augustine, _Ennaratio in Psalmum CXXIV._ 7 (Migne, _op. cit._ xxxvii. 1653).]

[Footnote 175: Laurent, _Études sur l'histoire de l'humanité_, iv. 117.]

[Footnote 176: _Cf._ Babington, _Influence of Christianity in Promoting the Abolition of Slavery in Europe_, p. 29.]

[Footnote 177: _Ibid._ p. 22. Potgiesser, _Commentarii juris Germanici de statu servorum_, i. 4. 8, p. 176. Muratori, _Dissertazioni sopra le antichità italiane_, i. 244.]

[Footnote 178: _Concilium Toletanum IV._ A.D. 633, can. 66 (Labbe-Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum collectio_, x. 635). Blakey, _Temporal Benefits of Christianity_, p. 397. Digby, _Mores Catholici_, ii. 341. Cibrano, _Della schiavitù e del servaggio_, i. 272. Rivière, _L'Église et l'esclavage_, p. 350.]

[Footnote 179: _Concilium Aurelianense IV._ about A.D. 545, can. 32 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ ix. 118 _sq._).]

[Footnote 180: _Concilium Rhemense_, about A.D. 630, can. 22 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ x. 597). Gratian, _Decretum_, ii. 12. 2. 13 _sqq._ Baronius, _Annales Ecclesiastici_, A.D. 1263, ch. 74 vol. xxii. 124. Le Blant, _Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule_, ii. 284 _sqq._ Babington, _op. cit._ pp. 51 _sqq._, 94 _sq._ Nys, _Le droit de la guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius_, p. 114.]

[Footnote 181: Bouvier, _Institutiones philosophicæ_, p. 566.]

The Apostles reminded slaves of their duties towards their masters and masters of their duties towards their slaves.[182] The same was done by Councils and Popes. The Council of Gangra, about the year 324, pronounced its anathema on anyone who should teach a slave to despise his master on pretence of religion;[183] and so much importance was attached to this decree that it was inserted in the epitome of canons which Hadrian I. in 773 presented to Charlemagne in Rome.[184] But there are also many instances in which masters are recommended to show humanity to their slaves.[185] According to Gregory IX. {696} "the slaves who were washed in the fountain of holy baptism should be more liberally treated in consideration of their having received so great a benefit."[186] Slaves who had taken refuge from their masters in churches or monasteries were not to be given up until the master had sworn not to punish the fugitive;[187] or they were never given up, but became slaves to the sanctuary.[188] The Church, as we have seen, protected the life of the slave by excommunicating for a couple of years masters who killed their slaves.[189] She prohibited the sale of Christian slaves to Jews and heathen nations.[190] The Council of Chalons, in the middle of the seventh century, ordered that no Christians should be sold outside the kingdom of Clovis, so that they might not get into captivity or become the slaves of Jewish masters;[191] and some Anglo-Saxon laws similarly forbade the sale of Christians out of the country, and especially into bondage to heathen, "that those souls perish not that Christ bought with his own life."[192] The clergy sometimes remonstrated against slave markets; but their indignation never reached the trade in heathen slaves,[193] nor was the master's right of selling any of his slaves whenever he pleased called in question at all. The assertion made by many writers that the Church exercised an extremely favourable influence upon slavery[194] surely involves a great exaggeration. As late as the thirteenth century the master practically had the power of life and death over his slave.[195] Throughout Christendom the purchase and {697} the sale of men, as property transferred from vendor to buyer, was recognised as a legal transaction of the same validity with the sale of other merchandise, land or cattle.[196] Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes from their masters, all the profits of their labour accruing to the latter; and if a master from indulgence gave his slaves any _peculium_, or fixed allowance for their subsistence, they had no right of property in what they saved out of that, but all that they accumulated belonged to their master.[197] A slave or a freedman was not allowed to bring a criminal charge against a free person, except in the case of a _crimen læsæ majestatis_,[198] and slaves were incapable of being received as witnesses against freemen.[199] The old distinction between the marriage of the freeman and the concubinage of the slave was long recognised by the Church: slaves could not marry, but had only a right of _contubernium_, and their unions did not receive the nuptial benediction of a priest.[200] Subsequently, when conjunction between slaves came to be considered a lawful marriage, they were not permitted to marry without the consent of their master, and such as transgressed this rule were punished very severely, sometimes even with death.[201]

[Footnote 182: _Ephesians_, vi. 5 _sqq._ _Colossians_, iii. 22 _sqq._; iv. 1.]

[Footnote 183: _Concilium Gangrense_, about A.D. 324, can. 3 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ ii. 1102, 1106, 1110).]

[Footnote 184: 'Epitome canonum, quam Hadrianus I. Carolo magno obtulit, A.D. DCCLXXIII.' in Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ xii. 863.]

[Footnote 185: Babington, _op. cit._ p. 58 _sqq._]

[Footnote 186: Baronius, _Annales Ecclesiastici_, A.D. 1238, ch. 62, vol. xxi. 204.]

[Footnote 187: Milman, _op. cit._ ii. 51. Rivière, _op. cit._ p. 306. Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes_, ii. 246, n. 1.]

[Footnote 188: 'Concilium Kingesburiense sub Bertulpho,' in Wilkins, _Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ et Hiberniæ_, i. 181.]

[Footnote 189: _Supra_, p. 426.]

[Footnote 190: _Concilium Rhemense_, about A.D. 630, can. 11 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ x. 596). _Concilium Liptinense_, A.D. 743, can. 3 (_ibid._ xii. 371). Hefele, _Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte_, i. 218. _Idem_, _History of the Councils of the Church_, v. 211.]

[Footnote 191: _Concilium Cabilonense_, about A.D. 650, can. 9 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ x. 1191).]

[Footnote 192: _Laws of Ethelred_, v. 2; vi. 9. _Laws of Cnut_, ii. 3.]

[Footnote 193: Hüllmann, _Stædtewesen des Mittelalters_, i. 80 _sq._ Loring Brace, _Gesta Christi_, p. 229. Rivière, _op. cit._ p. 325.]

[Footnote 194: Yanoski, _De l'abolition de l'esclavage ancien au moyen age_, p. 74 _sq._ Allard, _Les esclaves chrétiens depuis les premiers temps de l'Église_, p. 487; &c.]

[Footnote 195: _Supra_, p. 427 _sq._]

[Footnote 196: Potgiesser, _op. cit._ ii. 4. 5, p. 429. Milman, _op. cit._ ii. 16.]

[Footnote 197: Potgiesser, _op. cit._ ii. 10, p. 528 _sqq._ Du Cange, _Glossarium ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ Latinitatis_, vi. 451. Robertson, _History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V._ i. 274.]

[Footnote 198: Potgiesser, _op. cit._ iii. 3. 2, p. 612.]

[Footnote 199: Beaumanoir, _Coutumes du Beauvoisis_, xxxix. 32, vol. ii, 103. Du Cange, _op. cit._ vi. 452. Potgiesser, _op. cit._ iii. 3. 1, p. 611.]

[Footnote 200: Potgiesser, _op. cit._ ii. 2. 10 _sq._, p. 354 _sq._]

[Footnote 201: _Ibid._ ii. 2. 12, p. 355 _sq._]

The gradual disappearance of slavery in Europe during the latter part of the Middle Ages has also commonly been in the main attributed to the influence of the Church.[202] But this opinion is hardly supported by facts. It is true that the Church in some degree encouraged the manumission of slaves. Though slavery was considered a {698} perfectly lawful institution, the enfranchisement of a fellow-Christian was deemed a meritorious act, and was sometimes strongly recommended on Christian principles. At the close of the sixth century it was affirmed that, as Christ had come to break the chain of our servitude and restore our primitive liberty, so it was well for us to imitate Him by making free those whom the law of nations had reduced to slavery;[203] and the same doctrine was again proclaimed at various times down to the sixteenth century.[204] In the Carlovingian period the abbot Smaragdus expressed the opinion that among other good and salutary works each one ought to let slaves go free, considering that not nature but sin had subjected them to their masters.[205] In the latter part of the twelfth century the prelates of France, and in particular the Archbishop of Sens, pretended that it was an obligation of conscience to accord liberty to all Christians, relying on a decree of a Council held at Rome by Pope Alexander III.[206] And in one of the later compilations of German mediæval law it was said that the Lord Jesus, by his injunction to render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's and unto God the things that are God's, indicated that no man is the property of another, but that every man belongs to God.[207] Slaves were liberated "for God's love," or "for the remedy" or "ransom of the soul."[208] In the formularies of manumission given by the monk Marculfus in the seventh century we read, for instance:--"He that releases his slave who is bound to him, may trust that God will recompense him in the next world";[209] "For the remission of my sins, I absolve thee";[210] "For the glory {699} of God's name and for my eternal retribution," &c.[211] Too much importance, however, has often been attached to these phrases; the most trivial occurrences, such as giving a book to a monastery, are commonly accompanied by similar expressions,[212] and it appears from certain formulas that slaves were not only liberated, but also bought and sold, "in the name of God."[213] Nor can we suppose that it was from religious motives only that manumissions were encouraged by the clergy. It has been pointed out that, "as dying persons were frequently inclined to make considerable donations for pious uses, it was more immediately for the interest of churchmen, that people of inferior condition should be rendered capable of acquiring property, and should have the free disposal of what they had acquired." It also seems that those who obtained their liberty by the influence of the clergy had to reward their benefactors, and that the manumission should for this reason be confirmed by the Church.[214] And whilst the Church favoured liberation of the slaves of laymen, she took care to prevent liberation of her own slaves; like a physician she did not herself swallow the medicine which she prescribed to others. She allowed alienation of such slaves only as showed a disposition to run away.[215] The Council of Agatho, in 506, considered it unfair to enfranchise the slaves of monasteries, seeing that the monks themselves were daily compelled to labour;[216] and, as a matter of fact, the slaves of monasteries were everywhere among the last who were manumitted.[217] In the seventh century a Council at Toledo threatened with damnation any bishop who should liberate a slave belonging to the Church, without giving {700} due compensation from his own property, as it was thought impious to inflict a loss on the Church of Christ;[218] and according to several ecclesiastical regulations no bishop or priest was allowed to manumit a slave in the patrimony of the Church unless he put in his place two slaves of equal value.[219] Nay, the Church was anxious not only to prevent a reduction of her slaves, but to increase their number. She zealously encouraged people to give up themselves and their posterity to be the slaves of churches and monasteries, to enslave their bodies--as some of the charters put it--in order to procure the liberty of their souls.[220] And in the middle of the seventh century a Council decreed that the children of incontinent priests should become the slaves of the churches where their fathers officiated.[221]

[Footnote 202: Clarkson, _Essay on Slavery_, p. 19, _sq._ Biot, _De l'abolition de l'esclavage ancien en Occident_, p. xi. Thérou, _Le Christianisme et l'esclavage_, p. 147. Martin, _Histoire de France jusqu'en_ 1789, iii. 11, n. 2. Balmes, _El Protestantismo comparado con el Catolicismo_, i. 285. Blakey, _op. cit._ p. 170. Yanoski, _op. cit._ p. 75. Cochin, _L'abolition de l'esclavage_, ii. 349, 458. Littré, _Études sur les Barbares et le Moyen Age_, p. 230 _sq._ Allard, _op. cit._ p. 490. Tedeschi, _La schiavitù_, p. 68. Lecky, _History of Rationalism in Europe_, ii. 216, 236 _sqq._ Maine, _International Law_, p. 160. Kidd, _Social Evolution_, p. 168.]

[Footnote 203: St. Gregory the Great, _Epistolæ_, vi. 12 (Migne, _Patrologiæ cursus_, lxxvii. 803 _sq._). Gratian, _op. cit._ ii. 12. 2. 68. Potgiesser, _op. cit._ iv. 1. 3, p. 666 _sq._]

[Footnote 204: Babington, _op. cit._ p. 180.]

[Footnote 205: Smaragdus, _Via Regia_, 30 (d'Achery, _Spicilegium_, i. 253).]

[Footnote 206: de Boulainvilliers, _Histoire de l'ancien gouvernement de la France_, i. 312.]

[Footnote 207: _Speculum Saxonum_, iii. 42 (Goldast, _Collectio consuetudinum et legum imperialium_, p. 158).]

[Footnote 208: Du Cange, _op. cit._ iv. 460 _sqq._ Potgiesser, _op. cit._ iv. 12. 5, p. 751 _sqq._ Muratori, _op. cit._ i. 249. Robertson, _op. cit._ i. 323. Milman, _op. cit._ ii. 51 _sq._]

[Footnote 209: Marculfus, _Formulæ_, ii. 32 (Migne, _op. cit._ lxxxvii. 747).]

[Footnote 210: _Ibid._ ii. 33 (Migne, _op. cit._ lxxxvii. 748).]

[Footnote 211: Marculfus, _Formulæ_, ii. 34 (Migne, _op. cit._ lxxxvii. 748).]

[Footnote 212: Babington, _op. cit._ p. 61, n. 6.]

[Footnote 213: _Formulæ Bignonianæ_, 2, 'Venditio de servo' (Baluze, _Capitularia regum Francorum_, ii. 497):--"Domino magnifico fratri illi emptori, ego in Dei nomine ille venditor."]

[Footnote 214: Millar, _Origin of the Distinction of Ranks_, p. 274 _sq._]

[Footnote 215: Gratian, _op. cit._ ii. 12. 2. 54.]

[Footnote 216: _Concilium Agathense_, A.D. 506, can. 56 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ viii. 334).]

[Footnote 217: Hallam, _View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages_ (ed. 1837), i. 221.]

[Footnote 218: _Concilium Toletanum IV._ A.D. 633, can. 67 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ x. 635).]

[Footnote 219: Gratian, _op. cit._ ii. 12. 2. 58. Potgiesser, _op. cit._ iv. 2. 4, p. 673.]

[Footnote 220: Du Cange, _op. cit._ iv. 1286. Potgiesser, _op. cit._ i. 1. 6 _sq._, p. 5 _sqq._ Muratori, _op. cit._ i. 234 _sqq._ Robertson, _op. cit._ i. 326.]

[Footnote 221: _Concilium Toletanum IX._ A.D. 655, can. 10 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ xi. 29).]

The disappearance of mediæval slavery has further, to some extent, been attributed to the efforts of kings to weaken the power of the nobles.[222] Thus Louis X. and Philip the Long of France issued ordinances declaring that, as all men were by nature free, and as their kingdom was called the kingdom of the Franks, they would have the fact to correspond with the name, and emancipated all persons in the royal domains upon paying a just compensation, as an example for other lords to follow.[223] Muratori believes that in Italy the wars during the twelfth and following centuries contributed more than anything else to the decline of slavery, as there was a need of soldiers and soldiers must be freemen.[224] According to others the disappearance of slavery was largely effected by the great famines and epidemics with which Europe was visited during the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth {701} centuries.[225] The number of slaves was also considerably reduced by the ancient usage of enslaving prisoners of war being replaced by the more humane practice of accepting ransom for them, which became the general rule in the later part of the Middle Ages, at least in the case of Christian captives.[226] But it seems that the chief cause of the extinction of slavery in Europe was its transformation into serfdom.

[Footnote 222: Robertson, _op. cit._ i. 47 _sq._ Millar, _op. cit._ p. 276 _sqq._]

[Footnote 223: Decrusy, Isambert, and Jourdan, _Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises_, iii. 102 _sqq._]

[Footnote 224: Muratori, _op. cit._ i. 234 _sq._ _Idem_, _Rerum Italicarum scriptores_, xviii. 268, 292.]

[Footnote 225: Biot, _op. cit._ p. 318 _sqq._ Saco, _Historia de la esclavitud_, iii. 241 _sqq._]

[Footnote 226: Ward, _Enquiry into the Foundation and History of the Law of Nations in Europe_, i. 298 _sq._ Babington, _op. cit._ p. 147. Ayala, _De jure et officiis bellicis_, i. 5. 19. In the sixteenth century the statutes of some Italian towns make mention of the sale of slaves, who probably were Turkish captives (Nys, _Le droit de la guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius_, p. 140).]

This transformation has been traced to the diminished supply of slaves, which made it the interest of each family to preserve indefinitely its own hereditary slaves, and to keep up their number by the method of propagation. The existence and physical well-being of the slave became consequently an object of greater value to his master, and the latter found it most profitable to attach his slaves to certain pieces of land.[227] Moreover, the cultivation of the ground required that the slaves should have a fixed residence in different parts of the master's estate, and when a slave had thus been for a long time engaged in a particular farm, he was so much the better qualified to continue in the management of it for the future. By degrees he therefore came to be regarded as belonging to the stock upon the ground, and was disposed of as a part of the estate which he had been accustomed to cultivate.[228]

[Footnote 227: Storch, _Cours d'économie politique_, iv. 260. Ingram, _op. cit._ p. 72.]

[Footnote 228: Millar, _op. cit._ p. 263 _sqq._]

But serfdom itself was merely a transitory condition destined to lead up to a state of entire liberty. As the proprietor of a large estate could not oversee the behaviour of his villeins, scattered over a wide area of land, the only means of exciting their industry would be to offer them a reward for the work which they performed. Thus, besides the ordinary maintenance allotted {702} to them, they frequently obtained a part of the profits, and became capable of having separate property.[229] In many cases this no doubt enabled the serf to purchase his liberty out of his earnings;[230] whilst in others the master would have an interest in allowing him to pay a fixed rent and to retain the surplus for himself. The landlord was then freed from the hazard of accidental losses, and obtained not only a certain, but frequently an additional, revenue from his land, owing to the greater exertions of cultivators who worked for their own benefit;[231] and at the same time the personal subjection of the peasants naturally came to an end, as it was of no consequence to the landlord how they conducted themselves provided that they punctually paid the rents. Nor was there any reason to insist that they should remain in the farm longer than they pleased; for the profits it afforded made them commonly not more willing to leave it than the proprietor was to put them away.[232] Another factor which led to the disappearance of serfdom was the encouragement which Sovereigns, always jealous of the great lords, gave to the villeins to encroach upon their authority.[233] We have convincing proof that in England, before the end of Edward III.'s reign, the villeins found themselves sufficiently powerful to protect one another, and to withhold their ancient and accustomed services from their lord.[234] In Germany, again, the landlords sometimes furnished their villeins with arms to defend the cause of their master, and this undoubtedly tended to their enfranchisement, as persons who are taught to use and allowed to possess weapons will soon make {703} themselves respected.[235] A great number of villeins also shook off the fetters of their servitude by fleeing for refuge to some chartered town,[236] where they became free at once,[237] or, more commonly, after a certain stipulated period--a year and a day,[238] or more;[239] and it seems, besides, that the rapid disappearance of serfdom in the prospering free towns indirectly, by way of example, promoted the enfranchisement of rural serfs.[240] There are, further, instances of lords liberating their villeins at the intercession of their spiritual confessors, the clergy availing themselves of every opportunity to lessen the formidable power of their great rivals, the temporal nobility.[241] But the influence which the Church exercised in favour of the enfranchisement of serfs was even less than her share in the abolition of slavery proper.[242] She represented serfdom as a divine institution,[243] as a school of humility, as a road to future glory.[244] She was herself the greatest {704} serf-holder;[245] and so strenuously did she persist in retaining her villeins, that after Voltaire had raised his powerful outcry in favour of liberty and Louis XVI. himself had been induced to abolish "the right of servitude" in consideration of "the love of humanity," the Church still refused to emancipate her serfs.[246] But whilst the cause of freedom owes little to the Christian Church, it owes so much the more to the feelings of humanity and justice in some of her opponents.

[Footnote 229: Millar, _op. cit._ p. 264. Simonde de Sismondi, _Histoire des républiques italiennes du moyen âge_, xvi. 365 _sq._ Guérard, _Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint-Père de Chartres_, i. p. xli. Dunham, _History of the Germanic Empire_, i. 230.]

[Footnote 230: See Vinogradoff, _Villainage in England_, p. 87; Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law before the Time of Edward I._ i. 36, 427.]

[Footnote 231: Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, p. 173. Millar, _op. cit._ p. 267 _sqq._ Mill, _Principles of Political Economy_, i. 309, 311. Dunham, _op. cit._ i. 228 _sq._ On the inefficiency of slave labour, see also Storch, _op. cit._ iv. 275 _sqq._]

[Footnote 232: Millar, _op. cit._ p. 269 _sq._]

[Footnote 233: Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, p. 173.]

[Footnote 234: Eden, _State of the Poor_, i. 30.]

[Footnote 235: Dunham, _op. cit._ i. 229.]

[Footnote 236: Guibertus de Novigento, 'De vita sua,' in Bouquet, _Rerum Gallicarum et Franciarum scriptores_, xii. 257. 'Fragmentum historicum vitam Ludovici VII. summatim complectens,' _ibid._ xii. 286. Beaumanoir, _op. cit._ xlv. 36, vol. ii. 237. Eden, _op. cit._ i. 30. Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 531 _sq._ Saco, _op. cit._ iii. 252.]

[Footnote 237: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 532.]

[Footnote 238: Glanville, _Tractates de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliæ_, v. 5. Bracton, _De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ_, fol. 198 b, vol. iii. 292 _sq._ Beaumanoir, _op. cit._ xlv. 36, vol. ii. 237. Pollock and Maitland, _op. cit._ i. 429, 648 _sq._ Grimm, _Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer_, p. 337 _sq._ Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 532.]

[Footnote 239: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 532.]

[Footnote 240: _Ibid._ vii. 533 _sq._]

[Footnote 241: Thomas Smith, _Common-wealth of England_, p. 250. Eden, _op. cit._ i. 10. Sugenheim, _Geschichte der Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft und Hörigkeit in Europa_, p. 109.]

[Footnote 242: _Cf._ Rivière, _op. cit._ p. 511. Babington says (_op. cit._ p. 148 _sq._) that in the five-hundred pages of Wilkins' _Concilia_, which comprise the ecclesiastical documents of the British churches in the thirteenth century, we only find the following regulations concerning the unfree population:--that neither freemen nor villeins are to be impeded in making their wills when death approaches; that monks are not to alienate their less useful slaves (_famulos_); that Jews are not allowed to possess Christian slaves.--It was said that "he puts a disgrace on God who raises a villein above his station" (_ibid._ p. 150).]

[Footnote 243: Adalbero, _Carmen ad Rotbertum regem Francorum_, 291, 292, 297 _sqq._ (Bouquet, _op. cit._ x. 70):--"Thesaurus, vestis, cunctis sunt pascua servi. Nam valet ingenuus sine servis vivere nullus. . . . Triplex ergo Dei domus est, quæ creditur una. Nunc orant alii; pugnant; aliique laborant: Quæ tria sunt simul, et scissuram non patiuntur." St. Bonaventura, quoted by Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 522:--"Non solum secundum humanam institutionem, sed etiam secundum divinam dispensationem, inter Christianos sunt domini et servi."]

[Footnote 244: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 523.]

[Footnote 245: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 524.]

[Footnote 246: Hettner, _Geschichte der französischen Literatur im achtzehnten Jahrhundert_, p. 169. Babington, _op. cit._ p. 108. Sugenheim, _op. cit._ p. 156 _sqq._ Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 537 _sq._]

* * * * *

Not long after serfdom had begun to disappear in the most advanced communities of Christendom a new kind of slavery was established in the colonies of European states. It grew up under circumstances particularly favourable to the employment of slaves. Whether slave labour or free labour is more profitable to the employer depends on the wages of the free labourer, and these again depend on the numbers of the labouring population compared with the capital and the land. In the rich and underpeopled soil of the West Indies and in the Southern States of America the balance of the profits between free and slave labour was on the side of slavery. Hence slavery was introduced there, and flourished, and could be abolished only with the greatest difficulty.[247]

[Footnote 247: Mill, _Principles of of Political Economy_, i. 311.]

From a moral point of view negro slavery is interesting chiefly because it existed in the midst of a highly developed Christian civilisation, and nevertheless, at least in the British colonies and the United States, was the most brutal form of slavery ever known. It may be worth while to consider more closely some points of the legislation relating to it.

In America, as elsewhere, the state of slavery was hereditary. The child of a female slave was itself a slave and belonged to the owner of its mother even if its father was a freeman, whereas the child of a free woman was {705} free even if its father was a slave.[248] When the slave-trade was prohibited, heredity remained the only legitimate source of slavery; but even then a freeborn negro was far from safe. In the British colonies and in all the Slave States except one, every negro was presumed to be a slave until he could prove the reverse.[249] A man who, within the limits of a slave-holding State, could exhibit a person of African extraction in his custody was exempted from all necessity of making proof how he had obtained him or by what authority he claimed him as a slave. Nay more, through the direct action of Congress it became law that persons known to be free should be sold as slaves in order to cover the costs of imprisonment which they had suffered on account of the false suspicion that they were runaway slaves. This law was repeatedly put into effect. "How many crowned despots," says Professor von Hoist, "can be mentioned in the history of the old world who have done things which compare in accursedness with this law to which the democratic republic gave birth?"[250]

[Footnote 248: Stroud, _Laws relating to Slavery in the United States of America_, p. 16 _sqq._ Cobb, _Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America_, p. 68. Stephen, _Slavery of the British West India Colonies_, i. 122. _Code Noir_, Édit du mois de Mars 1685, art. 13, p. 35 _sq._; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 10, p. 288 _sq._ In Maryland, according to an early enactment, which obtained till the year 1699 or 1700, all the children born of a slave were slaves "as their fathers were" (Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 14 _sqq._). In Cuba the nobler parent determined the rank of the offspring (Newman, _Anglo-Saxon Abolition of Negro Slavery_, p. 17).]

[Footnote 249: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 369 _sq._ Stroud, _op. cit._ pp. 125, 126, 130. Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 67. Wheeler, _Treatise on the Law of Slavery_, p. 5.]

[Footnote 250: von Holst, _Constitutional and Political History of the United States_, i. 305.]

Slaves were defined as "chattels personal in the hands of their respective owners or possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."[251] In the British colonies and the American Slave States they were at all times liable to be sold or otherwise alienated at the will of their masters, as absolutely as cattle, or any other personal effects. They were {706} also liable to be sold by process of law for satisfaction of the debts of a living, or the debts or bequests of a deceased master, at the suit of creditors or legatees. They were transmitted by inheritance or by will to heirs at law or to legatees, and in the distribution of estates they were distributed like other property.[252] No regard was paid to family ties. Except in Louisiana, where children under ten years of age could not be sold separately from their mothers,[253] no law existed to prevent the violent separation of parents from their children or from each other.[254] And what the law did not prevent, the slave-owners did not omit doing; thus Virginia was known as a breeding place out of which the members of one household were sold into every part of the country.[255] All this, however, holds true of the British colonies and Slave States only. In the Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies plantation slaves were real estate, attached to the soil they cultivated. They partook therewith of all the restraints upon voluntary alienation to which the possessor of the land was there liable, and they could not be seized or sold by creditors, for satisfaction of the debts of the owner.[256] As regards the sale of members of the same family the Code Noir expressly says, "Ne pourront être saisis et vendus séparément, le mari et la femme, et leurs enfans impubéres, s'ils sont tous sous la puissance du même Maître."[257] A slave could make no contract; he could not even contract marriage, in the juridical sense of the word. The association which took place among slaves and was called marriage was virtually the same as the Roman _contubernium_, a relation which had no sanctity and to which no civil rights were attached.[258] The master could whenever {707} he liked separate the "husband" and "wife"; he could, if he pleased, commit "adultery" with the "wife," and was the absolute owner of all the children born by her. A slave had "no more legal authority over his child than a cow has over her calf." On the other hand, the common rules of sexual morality were not enforced on the slaves. They were not admonished for incontinence, nor punished for adultery, nor prosecuted for bigamy. Incontinence was rather thought a matter of course in the slave. We are told that even in Puritan New England female slaves in ministers' and magistrates' families bore children, black or yellow, without marriage, that no one inquired who their fathers were, and that nothing more was thought of it than of the breeding of sheep or swine. And concerning the "slave-quarters" connected with the plantations the universal testimony was that the sexes were there "herded together promiscuously, like beasts."[259]

[Footnote 251: Brevard, _Digest of the Public Statute Law of South-Carolina_, p. 229. Prince, _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_, p. 777. In the French _Code Noir_ (Édit du mois de Mars 1685, art. 44, p. 49; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 40, p. 305) slaves are declared to be "meubles."]

[Footnote 252: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 62. Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 84. Goodell, _American Slave Code in Theory and Practice_, p. 63 _sqq._]

[Footnote 253: Peirce, Taylor, and King, _Consolidation and Revision of the Statutes of the State_ [_Louisiana_], pp. 523, 550 _sq._]

[Footnote 254: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 62 _sq._ Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 82.]

[Footnote 255: Pearson, _National Life and Character_, p. 210.]

[Footnote 256: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 69.]

[Footnote 257: _Code Noir_, Édit du mois de Mars 1685, art. 47, p. 51; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 43, p. 306.]

[Footnote 258: Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 240 _sqq._ Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 99. Goodell, _American Slave Code_, p. 105 _sqq._ Wheeler, _op. cit._ p. 199. According to the Civil Code of Louisiana, "slaves cannot marry without the consent of their masters, and their marriages do not produce any of the civil effects which result from such contract" (Morgan, _Civil Code of Louisiana_, art. 182, p. 29).]

[Footnote 259: Goodell, _American Slave Code_, p. 111. In 1835 the query was presented to a Baptist Association of ministers, "whether, in case of involuntary separation of such a character as to preclude all future intercourse, the parties may be allowed to marry again?" The answer was, "that such separation among persons situated as our slaves are, is civilly a separation by death, and they believe that, in the sight of God, it would be so viewed. To forbid second marriages in such cases would be to expose the parties not only to greater hardships and stronger temptations, but to church censure for acting _in obedience to their masters_." Incidentally here the fact leaks out that slave cohabitation is enforced by the authority of the masters for the increase of their human chattels (Goodell, _Slavery and Anti-Slavery_, p. 185).]

Yet though slaves were regarded as chattels, the master could not do with his slave exactly what he pleased. We have noticed that the life of the slave was in some degree, though very insufficiently, protected by law,[260] and that a master who mutilated his slave was subject to a slight penalty.[261] The law also took care to prohibit the master from doing things which were considered injurious to the community or the State. There was a great fear of teaching negroes to read and write. William Knox, in a tract addressed to "the venerable Society for propagation {708} of the Gospel in foreign parts" in the year 1768, remarks that "instruction renders them less fit or less willing to labour," and that, if they were universally taught to read, there would undoubtedly be a general insurrection of the negroes leading to the massacre of their owners.[262] A similar fear underlies the laws on the subject which we meet with in the codes of some of the Slave States. According to the Negro Act of 1740 for South Carolina, any person who instructed a slave in writing was subject to a fine of one hundred pounds;[263] but this enactment was later on considered too liberal. A law of 1834 placed under the ban all efforts to teach the coloured race either reading or writing, and the punishment was no longer a pecuniary fine only, but, besides, imprisonment for six months or a shorter time or, if the offender was a free person of colour, whipping not exceeding fifty lashes.[264] In Georgia a law of 1770, which prohibited the instruction of slaves in reading and writing, was in 1833 followed by an act which extended the prohibition to free persons of colour.[265] In Louisiana the teaching of slaves was punished with imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.[266] North Carolina allowed slaves to be made acquainted with arithmetical calculations, but sternly interdicted instruction in reading and writing;[267] whilst Alabama warred with the rudiments of reading, forbidding any coloured persons, bond or free, to be taught not only reading and writing, but spelling.[268] In all these States the prohibitions referred to the master of the slave as well as to other persons. In Virginia, on the other hand, the master might teach his slave whatever he liked, but others might not.[269]

[Footnote 260: _Supra_, p. 428 _sq._]

[Footnote 261: _Supra_, p. 517.]

[Footnote 262: Knox, _Three Tracts respecting the Conversion and Instruction of the Free Indians and Negroe Slaves in the Colonies_, p. 15 _sq._]

[Footnote 263: Brevard, _op. cit._ ii. 243.]

[Footnote 264: McCord, _Statutes at large of South Carolina_, vii. 468.]

[Footnote 265: Prince, _op. cit._ pp. 785, 658.]

[Footnote 266: Peirce, Taylor, and King, _op. cit._ p. 552.]

[Footnote 267: _Revised Statutes of North Carolina passed by the General Assembly at the Session of_ 1836-7, xxxiv. 74, cxi. 27, vol. i. 209, 578.]

[Footnote 268: Clay, _Digest of the Laws of Alabama_, p. 543.]

[Footnote 269: _Code of Virginia_, cxcviii. 31 _sq._ Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 142.]

{709} There is yet another point in which the master's power was restricted in a most unusual way: in many cases he was not allowed to liberate his slave, or formidable obstacles were put in the way of manumission. Thus, in North Carolina a slave could formerly not be enfranchised except for meritorious services;[270] but this enactment was altered by the Revised Statutes of 1836-1837, according to which any emancipation granted to any slave "shall be upon the express condition, that he, she or they will leave the State, within ninety days from the granting thereof, and never will return within the State afterwards."[271] The Civil Code of Louisiana required that a slave, to be emancipated, should have attained the age of thirty years and behaved well at least for four years preceding the emancipation, unless, indeed, the slave had saved the life of his master or of one of his children, in which case he might be set free at any age;[272] and, according to a statute of 1852, the emancipated slave should be sent out of the United States within twelve months after his emancipation.[273] In several other States manumission was likewise hampered by various regulations;[274] and throughout the British West Indies there were restraints on manumission prior to the Emancipation Act.[275] By an act passed in Saint Christopher in the year 1802, a tax of £1,000 was imposed on the manumission of any slave who was not a native of, or had not resided for two years within, the island, whilst natives or residents might be enfranchised at half that price. But the authors of this act went further still. They considered that a master, though unwilling to pay £500 or £1,000 for the legal enfranchisement of a slave, might, during his own life, make him or her practically free by not exercising his own rights as master. Hence {710} they enacted "that if any proprietor of a slave should, by any contract in writing or otherwise, dispense with the slave's service, or should be proved before a justice of peace not to have exercised any right of ownership over such slave, and maintained him or her at his own expense, within a month, the slave should be publicly sold at vendue by the provost marshall; and should become the property of the purchaser, and the purchase-money should be paid into the colonial treasury."[276] In St. Vincents one hundred pounds sterling was required to be paid into the treasury for each slave sought to be manumitted,[277] whilst in Barbados a person minded to manumit a slave should pay £50 to the churchwarden of the parish in which he resided.[278] Very different were the Spanish laws on the subject of manumission. According to a law of 1528 a negro slave who had served a certain length of time was entitled to his liberty upon the payment of a certain sum, not less than twenty marks of gold, the exact amount to be settled by the royal authorities.[279] In 1540 a law was issued to the effect that "if any negro, or negress, or any other persons reputed slaves, should publicly demand their liberty, they should be heard, and justice be done to them, and care be taken that they should not on that account be maltreated by their masters."[280] Nay, a slave who wished to change his master and could prevail on any other person to buy him by appraisement, could demand and compel such a transfer,[281] and a master who treated his slaves inhumanly could be by the judge deprived of them.[282] In most of the British colonies and American Slave States, on the other hand, the slave had no legal right to obtain a change of master when cruel treatment made it necessary for his relief or preservation.[283] {711} The exceptions to this rule[284] were few and of little practical value.

[Footnote 270: Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 233.]

[Footnote 271: _Revised Statutes of North Carolina_, cxi. 58, vol. i. 585.]

[Footnote 272: Morgan, _Civil Code of Louisiana_, art. 185 _sq._, p. 30 _sqq._]

[Footnote 273: _Ibid._ Stat. 18th March, 1852, §1, p. 29.]

[Footnote 274: Brevard, _op. cit._ ii. 255 _sq._ (South Carolina). Prince, _op. cit._ p. 787 (Georgia). Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 231 (Alabama). Alden and van Hoesen, _Digest of the Laws of Mississippi_, p. 761. Haywood and Cobbs, _Statute Laws of the State of Tennessee_, i. 327 _sq._]

[Footnote 275: Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 282.]

[Footnote 276: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 401 _sq._]

[Footnote 277: Cobb, _op. cit._ p. 282 _sq._]

[Footnote 278: Moore, _Public Acts passed by the Legislature of Barbados_, p. 224 _sq._]

[Footnote 279: Helps, _Spanish Conquest in America_, iv. 373.]

[Footnote 280: _Recopilacion de leyes de los reinos de las Indias_, vii. 5. 8, vol. ii. 321.]

[Footnote 281: Barre Saint Venant, quoted by Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 119 _sq._]

[Footnote 282: Edwards, _History of the British West Indies_, iv. 451.]

[Footnote 283: Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 106. Stroud, _op. cit._ p. 93.]

[Footnote 284: Morgan, _Civil Code of Louisiana_, art. 192, p. 33. Morehead and Brown, _Digest of the Statute Laws of Kentucky_, ii. 1481. Edwards, _op. cit._ ii. 192 (Jamaica). Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 106 (some other British colonies). In the French islands a negro who had been cruelly treated, contrary to royal ordinances, was forfeited to the crown, and acquired, if not freedom, at least deliverance from a tyrannical master (_Code Noir_, Édit du mois de Mars 1685, art. 42, p. 48 _sq._; Édit donné au mois de Mars 1724, art. 38, p. 303 _sq._); but the Court which adjudged the offence might also decree the sufferer to be manumitted (Stephen, _op. cit._ i. 119).]

This system of slavery, which at least in the British colonies and the Slave States surpassed in cruelty the slavery of any pagan country ancient or modern, was not only recognised by Christian governments, but was supported by the large bulk of the clergy, Catholic[285] and Protestant alike. In the beginning of the abolitionist movement the Churches acknowledged slavery to be a great evil, but with the making of this acknowledgment they believed that they had done their share, and denied that there was any obligation on them, or even that they had any right, to proceed against the slave-holders. But things did not stop here. The lamentations of resignation were gradually changed into excuses, and the excuses into justifications.[286] The Bible, it was said, contains no prohibition of slavery; on the contrary, slavery is recognised both in the Old and New Testaments. Abraham, the father of the faithful and the friend of God, had slaves; the Hebrews were directed to make slaves of the surrounding nations; St. Paul and St. Peter approved of the {712} relation of master and slave when they gave admonitions to both as to their reciprocal behaviour; the Saviour Himself said nothing in condemnation of slavery, although it existed in great aggravation while He was upon earth. If slavery were sinful, would it have been too much to expect that the Almighty had directed at least one little word against it in the last revelation of His will?[287] Nay, God not only permitted slavery, but absolutely provided for its perpetuity;[288] it is the very legislation of Heaven itself;[289] it is an institution which it is a religious duty to maintain,[290] and which cannot be abolished, because "God is pledged to sustain it."[291] According to some, slavery was founded on the judgment of God on a damned race, the descendants of Ham; according to others, it was only in this way that the African could be raised to a participation in the blessings of Christianity and civilisation.[292] With the name of "abolitionist" was thus associated the idea of infidelity, and the emancipation movement was branded as an attempt to spread the evils of scepticism through the land.[293] According to Governor Macduffie, of South Carolina, no human institution is more manifestly consistent with the will of God than slavery, and every community ought to punish the interference of abolitionists with death, without the benefit of clergy, "regarding the authors of it as enemies of the human race."[294] It is true that religious arguments were also adduced in favour of abolition. To hold men in bondage was said to be utterly inconsistent with the inalienable rights which the Creator had granted mankind, and still more obviously {713} at variance with the dictates of Christian love.[295] Many clergymen also joined the abolitionists. But it seems that in the middle of the nineteenth century the Quakers and the United Brethren were the only religious bodies that regarded slave-holding and slave-dealing as ecclesiastical offences.[296] The American Churches were justly said to be "the bulwarks of American slavery."[297]