ppens when a free person, above the age of twenty, suffers
himself to be sold for the sake of sharing the price given for him. The
author of the Commentaries on the Laws of England thus combats the
reasonableness of all these grounds [1. b. c. 423.]: "The conqueror,"
says he, "according to the civilians, had a right to the life of his
captives; and having spared that, has a right to deal with him as he
pleases. But it is an untrue position, when taken generally, that by the
law of nature or nations, a man may kill his enemy: he has a right to
kill him only in particular cases; in cases of absolute necessity for
self-defence; and it is plain that this absolute necessity did not
subsist, since the victor did not actually kill him, but made him
prisoner. War itself is justifiable only on principles of
self-preservation; and therefore it gives no other right over prisoners
but merely to disable them from doing harm to us, by confining their
persons: much less can it give a right to kill, torture, abuse, plunder,
or even to enslave, an enemy, when the war is over. Since therefore the
right of _making_ slaves by captivity, depends on a supposed right of
slaughter, that foundation failing, the consequence drawn from it must
fail likewise. But, secondly, it is said slavery may begin _jure
civili_; when one man sells himself to another. This, if only meant of
contracts to serve, or work for, another, is very just: but when applied
to strict slavery, in the sense of the laws of old Rome or modern
Barbary, is also impossible. Every sale implies a price, a _quid pro
quo_, an equivalent given to the seller, in lieu of what he transfers to
the buyer; but what equivalent can be given for life and liberty, both
of which, in absolute slavery, are held to be in the master's disposal?
His property, also, the very price he seems to receive, devolves, _ipso
facto_, to his master, the instant he becomes a slave. In this case,
therefore, the buyer gives nothing, and the seller receives nothing: of
what validity then can a sale be, which destroys the very principles
upon which all sales are founded? Lastly we are told, that besides these
two ways by which slaves are acquired, they may also be hereditary;
"_servi nascuntur_"; the children of acquired slaves are, "jure
naturae", by a negative kind of birthright, slaves also.--But _this,
being built on the two former rights, =must= fall_ together with them.
If neither captivity, nor the sale of one