in, to compel him to give an account of his authority
for keeping the man in custody. Somerset had been a slave in Virginia,
the property of a Mr Stewart; and the captain of the vessel stated
that the owner had put him on board, to be conveyed to Jamaica, and
there sold. In what was called the return to the writ, the
justification for keeping Somerset in restraint was thus quaintly
stated:--'That at the time of bringing the said James Somerset from
Africa, and long before, there were, and from thence hitherto there
have been, and still are, great numbers of negro slaves in Africa; and
that during all the time aforesaid, there hath been, and still is a
trade, carried on by his majesty's subjects from Africa, to his
majesty's colonies or plantations of Virginia and Jamaica, in America,
and other colonies and plantations belonging to his majesty in
America, for the necessary supplying of the foresaid colonies and
plantations with negro slaves.' It proceeded to relate with the same
verbosity, that the slaves so brought from Africa 'have been and are
saleable and sold as goods and chattels; and upon the sale thereof,
have become, and been, and are, the slaves and property of the
purchasers thereof.' It was stated that Mr Stewart, who resided in
Virginia, had Somerset as a domestic slave or valet--that having
business to transact in London, he took his usual attendant there,
intending to take him back to Virginia. Somerset, however, made his
escape; and when he was apprehended, his master, probably believing
that he would thenceforth be rather a troublesome valet, changed his
intention, and put the negro into the hands of the captain of a vessel
bound for Jamaica, that he might be sold there.

The pleadings upon the legality of this proceeding were solemn and
full. The question was, Whether it was to be held a just inference,
from the fact of the slave, being undoubtedly by the law of the day
property in the colonies, that, while his colonial master made a
temporary stay in Britain, he should be property there also, without
any direct law to that effect. Had it been a question of inanimate
goods, there would be no reason why the property should not continue
in the colonial owner. It would be all one to the inanimate object
what hands it was in, and regularity and justice would decree that the
person who was owner of it in one country should be so in another. But
in these cases there was a separate adverse interest of a very s