 |
 |
When I did my thesis, I read the Mansfield Judgement very carefully and also talked it over with a solicitor friend who had done it as part of her legal training. If you read the opening preamble, Mansfield clearly sets out the primary basis for his judgement, which is the limitations of English law. The main point of the Mansfield Judgement is not the issue of the legality of slavery but people read it through the prism of slavery because a slave was at the centre of it. Essentially, masters who brought slaves from the colonies assumed they were enslaved here as well. France actually had laws to ensure this - see 'There are no slaves in France' by Sue Peabody and also the Code Noir. However, as Mansfield makes it (admittedly not very) clear in his review of English law, there has been no legislation about slavery since the establishment of Common Law, on which English law is still based. Mansfield said only positive law - i.e. the creation of legislation by Parliament - could create slavery in this country. Therefore Somerset, who presumably had no contract of employment, could not be compelled to do anything. Specifically in this case, this was to go abroad with his master. Mansfield did not abolish slavery - he concluded it did not exist here. My informant said the Mansfield Judgment is still relevant. Her practice had a lot of Indian clients who had land disputes over property in India. They wanted this tried in English courts by English law because they both lived here. She had to tell them, much to their bewilderment, that they had to go back to India and fight it through the courts there. It's also relevant because the various slaves brought here from places like Mali and the Sudan where it still exists cannot be compelled to return - see various autobiographies. Kathy > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:21:16 +0000 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: 'Why I Say No To 'Slavery Memorial Day'.' + Lord Manfield's 1772 decision on enslavement? > To: [log in to unmask] > > Well if he/she is looking to research English court cases, he/she is on a hiding to nothing. Believe me, I've looked (and so have others).There are a handful of well known ones - and nowt else. > > Regards > Ruth > > > > ________________________________ > > From: The Black and Asian Studies Association on behalf of msherwood > Sent: Mon 26/11/2012 08:09 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: 'Why I Say No To 'Slavery Memorial Day'.' + Lord Manfield's 1772 decision on enslavement? > > > > erPeople must stop propagating the myth that Lord Mansfield freed slaves. All he did was, as Kwaku says, is prevent people from England being exported into slavery in the 'British' West Indies. Most of the Wikipedia article uses one book as a source for info on Lord Mansfield and gives that totally incorrect/absurd information on slaves being freed without providing even one reference. So just ignore. Please be very careful when you use Wikipedia. > > > > I also agree with Kwaku that the Slavery Museum in Liverpool is generally OK. I visited many years ago and also commented on some captions, but I don't recall which. > > > > Later this week I am meeting with a lecturer who has applied for funding to research slavery court cases... > > > > > > > > From: The Black and Asian Studies Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of BBM/BMC > Sent: 24 November 2012 18:06 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: 'Why I Say No To 'Slavery Memorial Day'...' + Lord Manfield's 1772 decision on enslavement? > > > > Just found my open letter 'Why I Say No To 'Slavery Memorial Day'... <http://taobq.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/a-taobq-open-letter-why-i-say-no-to.html> ' has been published on The Weekly World: http://theweeklyworld.com/why-i-say-no-to-slavery-memorial-day-9989. > > > > The reason for this mail is that in my letter I comment on the International Slavery Museum, and highlight my only issue with the displays, which I pointed out to staff - a caption which, I believe, stated that in 1772 Lord Mansfield declared enslavement illegal. > > > > I contend that Lord Mansfield's judgment in the Somersett case did not definitively pronounce on the legality or illegality of enslavement. I believe the case was about whether or not Somerstt could be legally compelled to return to the Caribbean against his will. > > > > What say you? > > > > I'm interested in responses that delve a bit into the legal aspects - it throws up some interesting contract law issues, but not so solid on the il/legality of enslavement in Britain. However, I found a thread which references Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Murray,_1st_Earl_of_Mansfield - cite_note-hew32-64 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Murray,_1st_Earl_of_Mansfield#cite_note-hew32-64> - which states that a result of Mansfield's decision "between 14,000 and 15,000 slaves were immediately freed, some of whom remained with their masters as paid employees." > > > > What say you? > > > > Kwaku > > www.TAOBQ.blogspot.com <http://www.taobq.blogspot.com/> > > > >